Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 74

< Commons:Administrators' noticeboard‎ | User problems

User:Oliver Castaño Mallorca

Mess User:Oliver Castaño Mallorca has created (ex 1 2 3...)

Sock User:Skapheandros blocked in 2012. 115.84.95.178 12:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  Done
4nn1l2 (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Permissions

As Semmes868 I am editing the George Halley (Couturier) page and attempting to add photographs as illustration.

The photographs in question were made by my father John Albert and my brother Jeff Albert, both of whom are dead and I am the sole living relative and inheritor of their respective estates.

From what I was able to decipher from the notices sent, Wikipedia is asking for some sort of proof of my ability to assert ownership to release these photographs into the Commons for use in Wikipedia. What I don't understand is the nature of that authority. Please advise.

Thank you.

Semmes868 (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Semmes868: You can use our email ticket system as outlined in COM:OTRS. If you send an email to the specified address and explain the matter like you did here, the files should be undeleted in due time. You should mention the relevant file names too: File:Purple Jersey Coat & Dress.jpg, File:GHC 1957 Green Cape.jpg, File:Purple Jersey Coat & Dress.jpg, File:Lady Bird Print Silk Dress, 1957.jpg. Please be aware though, that our email service is entirely staffed by volunteers and it may take several months for your request to be processed. De728631 (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Urang Kamang

I'm afraid this user does not fully understand what files are allowable on the Commons. He has uploaded quite a number of photographs which are copyrighted. I spotted two of them (File:Yusof Ishak, 1970.jpg and File:Zubir Said 1958, National Archives of Singapore.jpg), but realized there are many others. For example, File:Yusof Ishak, 1970.jpg is claimed to satisfy {{PD-Singapore}}, but as a photograph from 1970 it will only be free of copyright once 70 years have passed since the end of the calendar year in which the photograph was taken, i.e., 2040. I think all of his recent uploads need to be reviewed. — SGconlaw (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

  Done. I warned Urang Kamang. New copyright violations should result a block. Now I'll delete some copyvios uploaded by him/her. Taivo (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! — SGconlaw (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Andy_Dingley

TEMPLATE REMOVED, USERS WARNED:
  • {{Retired}} template should not be added to the talk page of active users, because that may mislead other users and inhibit communication. Therefore, I removed that template from the talk page of User:Andy Dingley: Special:Diff/330864517.
  • User:Andy Dingley was reminded not to call other contributors "troll".
  • User:Incnis Mrsi has already been warned for tampering with template and starting the edit-war: Special:Diff/330786796.
  • Please also see this edit of mine: Special:Diff/330777410.

4nn1l2 (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  1. Attacks Jcb vocally;
  2. Censors his user_talk, and yet
  3. edit-wars against me over {{Retired}}.

Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Clearing one's own talk page is hardly edit-warring. I stand behind every criticism of Jcb, as I've posted for months.
However, stalking other users is a problem, and your behaviour for that is approaching block-worthy. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
No, I didn't see it either. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: Ummmmmmm. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
4nn1l2 and Alexis Jazz - Incnis added some sort of code to the actual template that made it invisible on Andy's talkpage,
Incnis there is no policy that forbids adding this to your talkpage - Ofcourse it is seen as misleading but either way it's his talkpage and so if he wants to add a retired template then let him.
(Just to add but the comment on Jcb's talkpage was pretty pointless but for reasons I probably don't know Andy is probably pissed with Jcb over something .... they'll work it out between them - I'm not seeing anything remotely actionable here)–Davey2010Talk 00:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The template {{Retired}} should be removed from the talk page of active users, because that may mislead other users. Talk pages are for communication, not personal belongings of users. Of course, they can have some control over it, but placing misleading messages which inhibit communication is a no-go.
  • User:Andy_Dingley can remove any postings from their talk page, and it cannot be considered censorship.
  • Those words ("untouchable" and "an honourable man" which is sarcastic here) are unfortunate, but If User:Jcb has no objections, I do not think we should involve ourselves. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I tend to ignore such statements most of the time. There are a lot of people around here who utter random things. Only if the behaviour is so excessive that it's disruptive for the project I consider starting a topic at this noticeboard. So no, I don't like such statements, but I don't think it's helpful to react at it at this stage. Jcb (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Andy Dingley: are you aware of the {{Considering retirement}} and {{Semi-retired}} templates? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    Isn’t by now obvious that Andy’s purported retirement is just a demand for personal validation? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
So what, why do you care?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Note that Andy_Dingley also vandalizes Commons content – see File:Carolyn_Davidson,_UK_Ambassador_to_Guatemala.jpg #filehistory. It would be easy to guess that I actually got the image from the same site but slightly different URL—namely https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/person/image/2429/carolyn_davidson_photo.jpg —and in any case Andy could ask on the file_talk page first. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

  • So you get a file from one URL, and you upload it here, claiming a licence applied to a different file, on a different page.
It is an extremely common practice for low-resolution copies of images to be licensed more generously than high-resolution copies. That may be what's happening here, or maybe they're both freely licensed and permissible at Commons. But until you the uploader demonstrate the correct licence, as applying to the version you're uploading, then you can't just swap them about as you like. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
How could be possible to license under the Open Government Licence a 216 × 140 picture derived from a non-free source? 140 px-high is large enough to be above the threshold, hence a downscaled non-free photo wouldn’t be compatible with the license on which gov.uk operates. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Just to note I've undone my closure here, We can all agree no good will come of this however I've been warned in the past not to close discussions here and unfortunately where I'm so used to closing these over at EN I did it here without even thinking so yeah undone the closure, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Petebutt and categorization

I asked about this user last month and didn't get much of a response. Now he has done a massive, ill-conceived movement of categories leading to this discussion. I'd appreciate advice on the best course of action. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: I’m currently using rollback to deal with massive disruption by Petebutt, especially clutter in Aircraft engine manufacturers. Generally, level of competence of this editor can be estimated from Revision of Category:Mikulin piston aircraft engines, hence I suggest block without further warnings on any attempt to wage edit wars. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

MRRaja001

MRRaja001 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Copyvios of pictures of the same person despite a previous block and statement he won't do it again. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

  Support indefinite blocking. Hopeless case. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  Done I blocked the Raja indefinitely. Copyvios are mostly nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 09:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
A lot of COM:SELFIE and presumed copyvio still online. Deletion request? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MRRaja001.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

User:MPF

This is not the place to contest DRs. Thousands of DRs are filed every month many of which have literally zero rationale at all. If you don't like this particular rationale, respond on the DR with your opinions. Bringing someone here for DR'ing three images is severe overkill. Not to mention that you didn't even talk to them first you just opened this thread. No. That is not how we do things. --Majora (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

He is asking for deletion photos of bird just because do not have the location:

Don't makes sense this request... How a sysop could request such things? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 22:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Rodrigo.Argenton: You're welcome to oppose the deletion request if you wish to - it is only my opinion, and others may agree or disagree with it freely. But I really don't see any value in keeping these 500 px images (or uploading them in the first place), as they are never going to get identified with no clues as to where in the world they are from. It is not the purpose of Commons to include every creative commons image that has ever been produced, but only those which are within COM:SCOPE (with COM:EDUSE particularly relevalt here). These, I'm sorry to say, are not realistically usable for any educational use. - MPF (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
You not be able to identify a bird, do not mean that another person will also not be able.
But make other volunteers waste their time because of "your opinions" is not correct.
"I really don't see any value in keeping these 500 px images" you know what you writing? "I don't see any value in your recent contributions"
You not be able to see the value of things, means that you should know better the community.
And...
With a very little effort, you can determinate that the first bird, for example, is a Columbian bird, I can make a bet that even an amateur birdwatcher can determinate who is this bird. I can go further, may even a mobile app can determinate what bird this is.
How this:
600px
Really, how can you say that this is an out scope image?
Even not identifying the bird I can use it as an example of Passeriformes. And if you deleted, who people will be able to identify???
You are in a community, your particular rules just applies to you. You dislike something do not give you the right to persecute and occlude it.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 02:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alexis Jazz

NO ACTION:

Per Fæ's last words, including the ritual (and friendly) trouting. Both users, please avoid negative comments on the other's person or intentions, stay calm and trust the community to address potential issues. Thanks, — Racconish 💬 14:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Over the past few months, Alexis Jazz has engaged in personal attacks, subtle and less subtle, almost on a daily base. Since their failed attempt in August to get me desysoped over the outcome of one DR (an outcome that not has been overruled since), it has become an obsession for them to seed negative sentiment on me. Some examples:

  • Continuously following my talkpage and involving themself in a non-constructive way in many cases, see e.g. here - Alexis Jazz telling a newby: "Sorry about Jcb's snarky response.", were the "snarky" response was "Was your father the photographer of this picture?". Not sure what would have been snarky in my question. If Alexis Jazz would not have involved themself in such a way, the user would probably have answered my question, so that the case may have been resolved.
  • Trying to convince an admin to start a new attempt to get me desysoped, see here (I must admit that Guanaco is blatantly at fault here as well, scheduling an ANU topic 4 months in advance is unheard of and really unbecoming for an admin)
  • Creating attack pages that have to be deleted (and then attacking deleting admin), see here
  • Encouraging users to circumvent OTRS, see here and here
  • Abusing COM:UDR for personal attacks almost daily, see e.g. here and especially this edit, which they even repeated when undone. Jcb (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

This never ending stream of personal attacks is damaging to this project and needs to stop here and now. And one thing has become very clear in the past 4 months: Alexis Jazz is not going to stop this behaviour voluntarily. Jcb (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

How about we hold admins to some standards of basic competence in implementing our agreed policies, starting with you? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment as I'm quoted here, I allow myself to put a comment. I just gave a quick look at Guanaco talk page and archive, as they are also quoted here, and honestly Guanaco is certainly not perfect (as all of us) but has committed no faulf from my point of view, and his intention seems to be quite noble at the begining, and he seemed to show good will. Because he seemed to want to calm the games, while advancing its arguments. And although I do not judge here its arguments, I do not perceive any bad intention in his behavior, so I find it unfair to bring him into disrepute. User:Alexis Jazz's behavior seems indeed a bit more problematic. Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
And the fact that Alexis Jazz enjoys the goodwill of Guanaco in a potential conflict with jcb is a also part of this problem
And the fact that Jcb don't see the goodwill of Guanaco at the begining is 1/the game of Alexis Jazz 2/ not the thing an administrator could be most proud of.
IMO Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
After the output of this, his talk page, + some of the links provided by Jcb, e.g. [1] + [2] + the ambiguity of his interventions in Guanaco's talk page, in other words put oil on the fire. Then I agree with Jcb "Alexis Jazz is not going to stop this behaviour voluntarily", behavior a bit too confrontational here. I tend to want to block him at least 2 weeks; someone has comments?? Christian Ferrer (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Jcb does many things that individually never warrant a desysop. But when considering a block for me, stacking little things is okay? And Jcb deleting my essays (as mentioned by 4nn1l2 on AN) was not putting oil on the fire? And I had a green light from an admin to document Jcb. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Trout is sufficient. For both parties. --Fæ (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Both users are clearly following each other, though User:Alexis Jazz is doing so in a more conspicuous and worrisome way.
  1. User:Alexis Jazz should remove the talk page of User:Jcb from their watchlist, and not involve themselves in discussions not directly related to them.
  2. User:Guanaco knows what they are doing very well, and nobody can convince them to do an unwise act, so there should not be any worries here.
  3. Dossier-like pages created by User:Alexis Jazz were removed correctly. I do not see any reason to get worried about them again. If they recreate those dossier-like pages, they should be blocked.
  4. User:Alexis Jazz should stop discouraging people from contacting OTRS. All OTRS agents have been identified to the Wikimedia Foundation.
  5. Calling other users "careless" in not helpful at all and should be avoided in the future. That being said, I have not found User:Jcb among the careful admins of Commons myself unfortunately. They should stop mass deletions by VFC or other automated tools and they should look at the history page of each file before its deletion.
All in all, I think User:Alexis Jazz should be given a stern warning about their behaviour, but no action beyond that is needed at this point. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
So you agree with the basis of Alexis' complaints, and yet you wish to admonish them despite?
This isn't about Alexis, it's about Jcb – but, as always, WMF prefers to shoot the messenger, rather than admit that an admin might be wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
For this kind of messengers who routinely use the word “troll” in disputes, I encourage Wikimedia authorities to shoot more such messengers. Hypocritically, Andy refers to Jcb (where the latter is notorious for permissive use of such vocabulary as “vandalism”) as to untouchable. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
@User:Andy Dingley: User:Jcb's mistakes in file deletions are no excuse for User:Alexis Jazz's misbehaviour. There are some red line, and if anybody crosses those red lines repeatedly, there should be consequences. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately—while Alexis’s flamewars backfired in this hurricane of obstruction—everybody here (4nn1l2 included) ignored the word “troll” in Andy’s edit summaries, as well as his tampering with my (Incnis Mrsi’s) posting. It reminds me of a similar situation in English Wikipedia where loyal sysops shielded Andy_Dingley from such requirements on civility that are considered requisite for most other editors. Who is prepared to throw Andy_Dingley out of Commons? If nobody is ready, then let’s close all this nonsense about blocks against Alexis_Jazz and their projected duration. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Sigh. Snarky comments unnecessarily escalating a tense situation, edit warring over a template on a user page, editing the template to revert by-proxy, calling someone a troll in response? Looks a lot like about 60% of this situation never would have happened if the people involved stopped for 30 seconds and asked themselves "Is this action going to predictably do nothing but make the situation worse in every possible way?" GMGtalk 13:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: I agree that User:Andy Dingley should be admonished for gratuitously calling you "troll" while your actions on their talk page (both your posting to their talk page and your first removal of the {{Retired}} template from their talk page were justified). However, we should not neglect the fact that your second removal of the {{Retired}} template from their talk page and your tampering with the wikicode of the {{Retired}} template were respectively provocative and unjustifiable. You had raised the issue at AN/U and you could simply wait for its outcome. Anyway, let's keep this issue for the thread below. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Incnis Mrsi has held a grudge against me for six years now, ever since their edit-warring over sourced dictionary definitions (probably deriving from English language problems) on an en:WP article: en:Talk:Nutation#Edit_warring_et_al_from_user:Incnis_Mrsi Even back then they went for a variety of unconstructive and disruptive approaches [3] and they've done so ever since, whenever they see my name. So yes, trolling. Call it what it is. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
@4nn1l2:
1. "should remove the talk page of User:Jcb from their watchlist"   Done, but it's a shame, because that's how I found cases like Fred_Cheng.JPG.
3. "If they recreate those dossier-like pages, they should be blocked." Wasn't planning on recreation.
4. "should stop discouraging people from contacting OTRS" I didn't. CoughingCookieHeart was concerned about the number of people on the OTRS team, not whether or not they have been identified by the WMF. And my first suggestion to them was to contact Yann (an OTRS agent mind you) directly.
5. I wholeheartedly agree. I won't deny the "careless" was fueled by frustration - frustration that (so far) Jcb seemingly can't be held accountable for his actions. To clarify, that doesn't automatically mean desysop. When I explain to other admins they made a mistake, they usually correct it. They fix their own errors. Jcb actively opposes restoration of public domain images. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment About Jcb's first point (I may get to the rest later, unless I find myself blocked before I can), his reply was actually "Was your father the photographer of this picture?" (this was the whole response) The italics make all the difference. Whether the italics were there for emphasis, snarkiness or both depends on how you read it. At the time, my interpretation was snarkiness. Jcb saying "If Alexis Jazz would not have involved themself in such a way, the user would probably have answered my question, so that the case may have been resolved." is completely made up. I explained the requirements of Commons to this user better. Why they were never heard from again? Maybe after my explanation they deduced the photo they uploaded couldn't be properly licensed for Commons. Maybe after reading Jcb's response they were like "okay so no undeletion, bye". Maybe they hate jazz music and upon seeing my username turned away. Maybe it was something I said. Maybe they forgot their password. Or maybe, given that their question on Jcb's talk page was the only edit they made on Commons this year, they simply have other things on their mind! I guess Jcb's crystal ball is working far better than mine. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't really have a side here. I've seen both these users do a lot of heavy lifting and I thank them both for the time they've committed. But it does seem like this rivalry crops up every few days. Are interaction bans a thing on Commons? I don't know if I've ever seen one here, but I don't contribute very much to ANU. GMGtalk 02:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Barely. If Jcb was more careful around (or avoided entirely) complicated DRs, hadn't deleted File:Fred Cheng.JPG because of some trivial background lighting, didn't try to override community consensus, delete files that are in use or override three license reviewers and the original copyvio spotter who admitted to have made a mistake.. you know.. I wouldn't have a reason to get in his hair in the first place. And with Jcb being an active admin, it's virtually unavoidable I regularly run into him. I wouldn't even be able to request undeletion of files he erroneously deleted or comment on his DRs with an IBAN. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Is it possible for everyone to just take a step back and try to see each other's opinions for a second? Alexis, you do come off a tad harsh on quite a few occasions. This really isn't necessary and most people respond better when talked to in a manner that makes them feel like they aren't being actively attacked. Admitting mistakes is hard. While humans are fallible by nature it doesn't mean that any of us like that. Pointing out mistakes is fine but pointing them out with snark maybe taking it too far and result in a rebuttal instead of an admission.

Jcb, would it be possible to perhaps take into consideration that some of the work you are doing will result in errors from time to time? This isn't a knock against you. This is a knock against humanity as again, to be perfect is to be a robot (and I'm not quite ready for our eventual robot overlords to take over). Admining is not an absolute process and revisions of actions happen all the time. Would it be possible to be more open to differing opinions on matters that others may not see as clear cut as you do?

I really do hope that this all doesn't fall on deaf ears. I don't believe that blocks are in order here just more understanding from two individuals who could do so much more good if they just took a step back and acknowledged each other and took into account the other side every now and then. --Majora (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Seconded. If any one side is absolutely right here, it's really hard to tell, not least of which because with all the history, there's like 150 pages of required reading. That's probably a lot to do with why there is a core group of participants (those who have done the required reading) and everyone else. But if any one side is actually right, being toxic doesn't actually help your case; it just discourages observers from looking into the required reading, because it looks like a grudge. GMGtalk 04:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Humans make mistakes, I get that. I do too. I don't fully agree with "Admitting mistakes is hard", because I do it on a regular basis. So it is only hard for some people. Maybe the majority, I don't know that. If possible, I'll attempt to repair any damage I caused. And I try to learn from my mistakes. When Yann made a mistake, he apologized and undid his action. So did you, Majora. So did Ruthven. That should be the standard. I'm not knocking Jcb for making mistakes, I'm knocking Jcb for making very little if any effort to repair damage once he is made aware of something (there are plenty of examples of that, and no, I'm not allowed to share them). I'm knocking Jcb for actually resisting any repairs. I'm knocking Jcb for (almost?) never admitting he was wrong about something. Just saying "in hindsight that wasn't the smartest possible move" (and fixing your mistake) goes a long way. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 2 week block per Christian Ferrer. When someone comes to AN/U to complain about another, of course it can sometimes boomerang. But we must also be careful to not allow the defendant to gratuitously raise issues with the complainer in an attempt to deflect away from their own faults. Alexis is clearly doing that. Jcb's deletion track record is no excuse at all for Alexis's behaviour. Nor should an AN/U permit the usual suspects (Andy Dingley, particularly here) to simply latch on to an opportunity to moan about someone they have a long term grievance with and make no attempt to actually look at the situation at hand. The situation here is that Alexis felt Jcb had been "careless" in some deletions and had put them up for undeletion. Whether that is true or not is utterly beside the point and a topic for another day. The point is that the undeletion request should be about the image, not about the person. We should professionally examine the image and licence and source, etc, etc to judge whether to host it. When I made that point on Alexis's talk page, he did not accept it in his response to me. And I'm not convinced he accepts it here either because the cause of it -- his frustration that Jcb hasn't been desysopped yet -- hasn't been satisfied. This is the problem with Alexis: he has been offered advice numerous times on these pages and elsewhere, but usually explicitly rejects the advice and always in practice ignores it. Wrt interaction bans, Commons doesn't do that, and I very much don't support it. There are many reasons for that. Suggesting one is usually a symptom of failure to analyse the problems. Alexis has been here too many times for making personal attacks and inappropriate negative personal comments (criticising Jcb in a header on a page that is about images). If someone had done that in a power-point slide in a professional office environment, they'd be up before HR before the talk was over. The snarky comment issue above is also a perfect example of where Alexis bends over backwards to rationalise their behaviour instead of admitting fault. 2 week block. Increased next time. -- Colin (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    Astonished that Christian’s punitive proposal can be considered seriously by anybody except the most hawkish elements. First of all, blocks had to be applied when the war was in progress, not afterwards. Second, both edit warriors—that is, Jcb included—should have been blocked then. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yay! Not blocked yet. Now I can respond to another point Jcb made: "Abusing COM:UDR for personal attacks almost daily."
Okay let's see what I've participated in during the last two months. Note that several UDRs were triggered by files that are on my watchlist. If Jcb happens to be the deleting admin, well, I can't help that. There may be some errors in this list.
Extended content

October:

November:

December:

* Something that to the best of my memory was on my watchlist. I had no control over who would delete it.

If I count correctly, I was out of line on 17 November, which I'm sorry for. And yesterday I put the word "careless" in the title of the huntingtontheatreco UDR. While not incorrect, it's the wrong place, I admit. Still, I don't think 2 things spaced 3 weeks apart really qualify as "almost daily". - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Jcb listed several issues. You've commented on one now that you might be blocked. The day before you listed several files with the comment "And no, undeleting these won't even come close to repairing all the damage. But I guess we need to start somewhere" but no reason for undeletion. When Jcb opposed as "no reason for undeletion specified" you replied "Un-fucking-believable". When the "careless" heading was created for another UDR, and Alexis warned about it, he edit warred to restore it and wrote "Guess fucking what Jcb, your actions on that DR were careless!". That was last night. Using this language towards another editor here is not acceptable. Alexis doens't seem to appreciate that. He still doesn't seem to get why creating attack pages is wrong and blames another admin on that -- nobody forced you to create those pages. I'm not entirely sure what the above dump is supposed to indicate. We recognise you have made constructive edits on the project. So you now, when facing a block, admit "careless" was on the wrong place, but not "fucking"? Honestly, I don't think you are really doing any self examination but merely making minimal gestures. You give us some silly story about the snarky comment. Blame another admin for your attack pages. You haven't addressed the OTRS issue, where you encouraged a user to contact you rather than someone the community has appointed to be trusted with email. And this noticeboard archive has been busy with complaints about you, for which you have so far escaped a block. I think that unless there is a block, Alexis will continue to use this noticeboard and other forums to dump abuse on Jcb and others. -- Colin (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Sadly, I have to agree with Colin. Such conduct does not benefit the project.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
"You've commented on one now that you might be blocked." No, I had already commented on some of the other points.
"When Jcb opposed as "no reason for undeletion specified" you replied" Jcb can actually see the files. He can instantly see there are no problems with them.
"When the "careless" heading was created for another UDR" I'm not following here, what other UDR?
"He still doesn't seem to get why creating attack pages is wrong" Those were not attack pages.
"you encouraged a user to contact you rather than someone the community has appointed to be trusted with email." I already addressed that and no I didn't. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I do not think the use of f-word is malicious or even uncivil in this context. My understanding is that it is just a sign of irritation on the part of speaker. It is not directed at or against another person. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Jcb knows this noticeboard has a reasonable burden of proof for sysop action. Someone being annoying, or even vulgar, while attempting to hold an administrator to account, does not cross the hostile environment threshold of COM:BP. Though nobody is expected to put up with harassment, an administrator's role includes being asked to account for their actions, and be competent to handle angry contributors without further escalating into argument or feuds. Valid points have been made here, and we can cross our fingers and hope that Jcb takes some of these on board before they create reasons for more complainants to raise more threads on noticeboards.

Alexis Jazz is being annoying, they need to take a chill pill and reflect on Mellow, or take time out to review the archives of this noticeboard for past threads involving Jcb, to note what works well and what is a waste of time. Being polite (or just factual) costs nothing, and need not stand in the way of both effective governance or being persistent. If there is a problem, then let the evidence speak for itself rather than creating avoidable tangents. By the way per BP "Tracking a user's contributions for policy violations is not harassment", however even with this clear statement of policy, it may be simpler to do analysis off-wiki until you are ready to present a case, rather than this being interpreted as hounding.

Could an administrator close this thread as no action, perhaps with a trout slap for both parties for letting their dispute escalate? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:B dash

DRS SPEEDY KEPT:

I just closed the DRs as the original file with complete EXIF data was uploaded and then removed per COM:CSD#G7: File:150928 Originaldatei D55 9112 150928-Mond-01.jpg.

  • User:B dash should be more careful when they nominate files for deletion. They should always consider the overall upload history of the affected users.
  • User:T Cells is reminded to assume good faith and not use inflammatory language.
  • User:BlueBreezeWiki is reminded to stay calm. Over-insistence on apology and making snarky comments Special:Diff/331425188 is at odds with collegial atmosphere of Wikimedia Commons. 4nn1l2 (talk)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:B dash thinks my pictures are not my own work. This statement is wrong. Of course I own the original files! Therefore, I expect an immediate apology for this monstrous assertion.

See more here: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:150928-Mond-01.jpg

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:150928-Mond-02.jpg

--BlueBreezeWiki (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Why don't any of your uploads have any EXIF data? I can understand removing sensitive information (such as your name if you have that option in the camera, the camera/lens serial number, GPS info) but not to have the date, time and camera isn't really sensitive. You can't blame B dash for raising a question and having concerns, since a small amount of people remove EXIF data in an attempt to upload work that isn't their own, but I do think they should have raised this question on your talk page before heading down the DR route. Bidgee (talk) 07:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
The EXIF data is my private data. They do not matter for the assessment of a picture. Before the user B dash makes any allegations, he should ask better. --BlueBreezeWiki (talk) 07:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
EXIF data does play a role in assessing whether a photograph(s) are the uploader's own work, I can understand your concerns and also rights that you have in Europe but I hope you can understand that when editors here see photographs that a in low resolution and no EXIF data start to question them, all due to a few people not having an understanding of copyright or a few bad apples deliberately removing it to try and make it harder to trace the original (though tineye and Google Images make it a little simpler). Bidgee (talk) 07:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Asking for verification is fine, bad faith allegations are not. The other uploads are reasonable, I have yet to see a definite copyvio. --Fæ (talk) 08:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I upload the original file. But first I expect an apology for these false and defamatory allegations. --BlueBreezeWiki (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the the EXIF data matter for the assessment of pictures, including this one. Lack of metadata is usually a strong indication that the file is a copyright violation. Uploading the original unmodified file would clear the issue. And I suggest you stay mellow. This is just a regular inquiry. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
@BlueBreezeWiki, auch wenn ich deinen ersten Ärger als langjähriger, gutwilliger Hochlader gut verstehen kann, solltest du bedenken, dass 1) ein Löschantrag kein persönlicher Angriff ist (B dash hat ja nur einen Verdacht geäussert "unlikely to be own work"), und 2) generell mindestens 10% aller neuen Uploads auf Commons Urheberrechtsverletzungen sind, es also ein alltägliches Problem ist. Dass wegen der schieren Menge an URVs beim Screening immer wieder mal Fehleinschätzungen vorkommen, ist zwar bedauerlich, aber unvermeidbar. Die LA-Diskussion dient ja dazu, die Einschätzung des LA-Stellers nach dem "Mehraugen-Prinzip" zu hinterfragen. --Túrelio (talk) 08:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Das ist verständlich, aber es ist meiner Ansicht nach eine Unverschämtheit solche Behauptungen aufzustellen. Wenn jemand eine Frage hat dann soll er fragen! Aber an Stelle einfach unkontrolliert irgendwelche Dinge automatisch zu tun, sollte der Benutzer B dash zunächst einmal seine Arbeitsweise überprüfen. Und ich muss mich hier auch nicht von unterschiedlichen Benutzern beleidigen lassen. --BlueBreezeWiki (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Ich habe am 28.09.2018 zwischen 4:49 und 5:28 ungefähr 110 Bilder vom Mond aufgenommen. Zwei davon wurden 30 Minuten später bei Wikimedia hochgeladen. Es existieren sowohl die orignalen NEF und jpg-Dateien. Die Uhrzeit der Aufnahme war gegen 5:03 Uhr. Ich besitze kein Teleskop, sondern nur eine einfache Kamera mit einem einfachen Objektiv mit max. 450 mm Brennweite. Daß da bei einer Mondaufnahme kein größeres Bild dabei herauskommt sollte jedem der bei Wikimedia solche Anfragen stellt eigentlich klar sein.

The facts: The picture was taken at 5:03:24 CEST. Focal length 450 mm (35 mm film). Exposure time 0.4 seconds. Aperture 8. ISO 1600. It exists both the NEF and the simultaneous jpg file.

I expect an immediate apology from the users who have made false accusations against me. Then I upload an original image for review. This image must be deleted after being reviewed by an administrator. It is not open to the public. --BlueBreezeWiki (talk) 09:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I guarantee you that the raw image will speedy-deleted after review. --Túrelio (talk) 09:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I expect an immediate and formal apology. In particular, the user T Cells and B dash. Then I upload the file immediately. It's unreasonable for users to make defamatory statements here. --BlueBreezeWiki (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @BlueBreezeWiki: As mentioned by some users before, EXIF data is an important data to check the copyvio problems. Usually, small image without EXIF data may mean that some users grab a copyrighted photo, then they cropped it and pretend to be own work. I have dealt with this problem for times, so I am quite alert for this. Anyway, if I have misunderstand and upset you by making this DR, I am here to apologise. --B dash (talk) 10:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
@ B dash. ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueBreezeWiki (talk • contribs) 10:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline about keeping EXIF data? Then BBW has the right to complain, and the responses here are terrible. Sounds like a general problem, not user problem.--BevinKacon (talk) 11:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Asterix2018

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Asterix2018 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Uploads and reuploads the same file despite warning. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

  Done One week blocked. Yann (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ça m'ennuie (it bores me)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I find it strange that two users, who created their account the same day, both upload out of scope images and then request their deletion with the same rationale [4] [5]. — Racconish 💬 14:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems they are part of a school programme. So it is not surprising that there are related and similar. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

মঞ্জুর আলম খান

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

মঞ্জুর আলম খান (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Apart from his User's page profile photo, everything is copyvio. Already warned twice. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

  Done All copyvios deleted, or nominated for deletion. Yann (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mferenac

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mferenac (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios after previous block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for 6 months. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Riza tbzli

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Riza tbzli (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios after previous block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for 3 months. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Solomon203 and redirects

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The user makes scores of renaming requests, and then blanks redirects—such as in File:Ocean Plaza 海洋廣場 - panoramio.jpg (hist • logs • abuse log). The rationale provided is “The original file name is wrong and should be deleted”, that is, VoyenTech’s syndrome. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

So? Such things as happen to File:台北市會議大樓Taipei City Council - panoramio.jpg (hist • logs • abuse log) are now tolerable? Anybody willing to interfere with the deletion machine? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Blocked by Didym for one month. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

file deleted and threats made with apparently false claim of copyvio

NO ACTION:

I warned Kwamikagami for uncivility. Any other attack should lead to a block. Yann (talk) 08:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Admin Magog the Ogre filed a request for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Original South Park flag.png with an apparently false rationale. When I asked him to provide evidence, he gave links to blogs etc that use the same image. When I pointed out that they did not demonstrate copyvio, he backtracked from his initial claim that the file was from South Park Studios, but then claimed that if it appears elsewhere on the web, that's proof that it was stolen, and accused me of being intentionally obtuse. When I told him that as an admin he should know better, and repeated the request for evidence, he speedily deleted the file.

That's ridiculous. If he has no evidence, he has no business deleting the file. If he does have evidence, he should provide it. I don't see how he could possibly believe what he said.

He also threatened, "You are hereby warned to stop uploading copyright violations and lying about it, or you will be blocked."

That is unacceptable behaviour. (Though my response, "Are you a sociopath?", was admittedly also inappropriate. An honest question, actually, but not a productive one.)

If there's no evidence that the image is a copyvio, can it be re-uploaded? And if there is evidence, can that be presented? I suppose I could ask the uploader, but it's been years and they very well might not remember where they got it. Kwamikagami (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Creating a section on anyone's user page of "are you a sociopath?", is a deeply offensive personal attack. You mention it above, but have not removed it. Do so. --Fæ (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I have a thick skin, I can tolerate the personal attack. I'd rather address the copyright issue.
First off, the image is an almost exact copy of one from South Park (link to the clip in action). This without question qualifies it as a derivative work.
Second off, even this specific drawing of the image was for around for years before Kwamikagami uploaded it (link to the evidence in question). When I pointed this out his response was to bluster and claim the evidence wasn't actually evidence. I'll gladly let Commons be the judge if an identical image uploaded to the internet in 2001[6] was miraculously recreated by Kwamikagi in 2015.
Kwamikagami: you will find no sympathy on this board. This community has little tolerance for people who claim they created something they didn't. It has no tolerance when users lie after being confronted. And it has no tolerance whatsoever when users create drama when they're clearly in the wrong. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Wow!! Actual evidence! If you had done your job and provided that evidence in the first place -- which, as an admin, I'm sure you knew to do -- I would never have contested your request for deletion. Or, when I did contest it, had presented that link, I would've conceded then. Now that you have finally provided evidence for your claim, I will concede.
Or, if you had provided the link to COM:DW when I objected that the img in question was not one of the imgs that you linked to the first time, that would've done the trick.
See how much easier things are when you approach WP/Commons as the cooperative enterprise it's supposed to be? Kwamikagami (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I presented nothing here I didn't present there. Regardless, it's immaterial. And no, we don't flame other users and lie about copyrights until someone provides proof calling us out; that's not how it works on here. Please don't do it again or, as I said, you will be blocked. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 06:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC). I now see you uploaded but didn't claim you created it, but another user did. I'm not sure how this but I assume it means you made an honest mistake. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 06:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that's pretty much it. I moved or renamed or re-uploaded a file that was already on WP (I don't remember the details from 3+ yrs ago). The upload/move engine put my name on it, so I changed it to the original uploader's name, twice. I have no idea whether Powerus was the original creator, though the length of time since the blog post you found makes that seem unlikely. I didn't see any dates that old on the links you originally provided, just ones that postdated the file on WP. Kwamikagami (talk) 08:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Cool. A seasoned Wikipedian Kwamikagami uploaded a work by a third party to en.Wikipedia and tried to CC-license it under his name. Another Wikipedian transferred the file to Commons, where the copyvio—predictably—was detected and deleted. Instead of apologies, Kwamikagami started a public brawl. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
No, I never did that. You might want to review the file history as Magog has. As for a brawl, I didn't appreciate being called a cheat/liar simply because I asked for supporting evidence for a claim. Kwamikagami (talk) 08:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Emi matsui

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Emi matsui (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Uploading copyvio after a two-week block. 153.174.1.176 07:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

  Done --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deepumauryass

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi,

Deepumauryass: Unacceptable username; Uploads only copyrighted material: Not here to contribute. Please block.

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

  Done Indef. Yann (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

QueerEcofeminist

Still start several DRs rather than use {{Duplicate}} to tag those duplicate files. --219.79.97.165 11:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

These files—as far as I examined—are not duplicates in the sense of Commons:CSD #F8. Dismiss this thing and, rather contrary, pretexts for user_talk:QueerEcofeminist #Duplicate_images should be investigates. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
I have Replied regarding the same on user talk. Thanking you --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 02:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Hounding

I've nominated offensive pro-Russian map for deletion and just few minutes after some user from Russia started to nominate for deletion lots of my old files obviously without objective reasons, I have no time to respond for every nomination, can you please just close it all and warn him/her to not continue doing so? [7] [8] [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igor Balashov (talk • contribs) 13:03, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

P.S. He/she is also warned me on my talk page for my suggestion that he/she is hounding me and now I've noticed that he/she is administrator here. Nice admins you have there guys, is Сommons already a branch of Russian wiki?))--Igor Balashov (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
@Igor Balashov: This is not hounding, please read COM:AGF and COM:MELLOW. COM:OTRS permission from the author is needed. The warning on the talkpage is fine. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Permissions for my own photos like here Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ludmyla Gorbulia.jpg or like in one that you've just nominated? If some disputable cases I would agree that may be not hounding, but for example with Gorbulia's photo it is complete absurd, my photo nominated because someone (I) placed it on Facebook?--Igor Balashov (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
@Igor Balashov: Facebook's Terms of Use are incompatible with publishing here. Also, please read COM:DW and notify users like @Sealle when you discuss them here.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Due to Facebook's terms, it is indeed not permitted to publish a freely licensed picture from Commons on Facebook without explicit permission by the author to do this. But if the author wishes it, he can upload it (or let anyone else upoad it) on Facebook of course. He does not loose the copyright on the picture once it's uploaded at Facebook, if you mean something like that. Otherwise, we had to delete all WLM winning photos, because the WLM jury published them on their Facebook page; just to name one example. --A.Savin 15:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
@A.Savin: From what I have seen, Igor Balashov has yet to show that he holds the copyright to any of the underlying work, that he holds the copyright to the DWs, that he posted anything to Facebook, or that he licensed any such post consistent with COM:L on Facebook or via OTRS. His claim on 1940 photo File:Petrenko V.S. young.jpg of "Own work" is rather farfetched.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
My comment was not whether Mr. Balashov is the true author, but because of your statement that uploading on Facebook would not be compatible with uploading on Commons whatsoever. This is of course not true --A.Savin 17:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Charlyto71

Charlyto71 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Uploads and reuploads the same deleted files. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Likely also a beginner(?) sock puppeteer. es:Wikipedia:Cambiar el nombre de usuario #Charlyto71 → Carlos_Marcelo_Macchi examine the “cuenta global” link. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  Done Last warning sent, all files deleted, or nominated for deletion. Yann (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Samfisher9532

Hi,

Please, handle this newbie. Is harassing me about his editorial problems on English Wikipedia.

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

  Done Indeffed - clearly was not here to contribute to Commons. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Artemix1

Artemix1 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Every single upload is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

  Done blocked. Jon Kolbert (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Damian filomeno ex jugador de futbol argentina ‎

Damian filomeno ex jugador de futbol argentina (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

A RCU is needed for different accounts posting the same OOS image:

--Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Nimaganji62

Nimaganji62 (talk · contribs) has uploaded more unfree works after warnings and a one-week long block. --Mhhossein talk 07:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

  Done No useful edit, 3 months block. Yann (talk) 08:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
This is IMHO casus inoperabilis; possibly socks are soon to appear (if not already). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, it is not because someone doesn't accept our rules that we should let them have a free wheel. Yann (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

SRudetska

Sysops, please, wipe uploads out. Hundred images by third parties falsely credited as {{Own}}. Examples:

Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

  Done --A.Savin 17:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive deletion nominations by มองโกเลีย๔๔

มองโกเลีย๔๔ has made a lot of disruptive deletion nominations. I think they should all be reverted? --Paul_012 (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

That is, will not return the absolute value because if all of these are illegal and illegal images that are traffic signs--มองโกเลีย​๔​๔​ —Preceding comment was added at 14:59 26 December 2018 (UTC) (UTC)

  Comment I warned this user, and I am closing them all. Yann (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
User has not ceased said behaviour and continued to create nonsense nominations after the warning, at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pedestrians crossing.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minimum speed.jpg. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Both DRs date from before the warning and were closed by Yann 26 December. The only DR I see from after the warning is Commons:Deletion requests/File:B-Bü.png, which seems a reasonable nomination IMHO. Jcb (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Oops. Sorry about that; probably got time zones mixed up. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Mystic212

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

  Done Second block, 3 months, Yann (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Svetlana34

Continues copyvios just back from block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

  Done Idem above. Yann (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Pv sindhu

Remove deletion discussion tag in file and close discussion thread prematurely . May need CU for identify sockmaster, but the behaviour itself qualify for a block. Matthew hk (talk) 08:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Also canvassing in many user talk page. Matthew hk (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  Done One week block, pending investigation. Yann (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Kawatoru55

Kawatoru55 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  keeps uploading copyright violations. Could someone block the user and delete his/her uploads? 153.202.200.136 09:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

  Done Obvious copyvios deleted, last warning sent. Remaining files need investigation. --Yann (talk) 09:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Damian filomeno soccer player f.c rm

Damian filomeno soccer player f.c rm (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Abuse of multiple accounts. Following Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Damian filomeno ex jugador de futbol argentina above. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

  Done Yann (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Defamation from User:The Photographer

No admin action required. Pleclown (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:The Photographer has accused me of threatening the life of an endangered animal. This is a serious allegation. He has not withdrawn his libellous accusation. This libel relates to my current nomination on FP and I've posted a request for help on the Commons:Featured pictures candidates talk page. I seek guidance as to what sanctions can be imposed for this defamation. Wikipedia states that "It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that the material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory." and "It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified." So the libel should be removed immediately, but by who? Can anyone help? Charles (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

(I've removed The Photographers signature from the heading as well as from the OPs rationale - These should be plain text, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC))
  Comment Although his claim is certainly nonsense, I wouldn't call it libel. However flash may very well disturb animals. If that is acceptable is very much open for debate. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
You might help your case by providing a precise link or diffs, rather than generically referring to a massive multiple page noticeboard. --Fæ (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Charles, if you expect the community to respond to your allegation, you could at least do us the favour of linking to the dispute. I assume it is Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Blue-legged chameleon (Calumma crypticum) female Ranomafana.jpg. Please read Wikipedia:No legal threats, in particular the advice to avoid 'repeatedly assert(ing) that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous"'. I suggest also you read en:Defamation, particularly about "statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true" and "fair comment". The Photographer has stated their opinion that a flash photograph of a lizard, taken in darkness, could harm the animal. How is this any different to someone opposing a photograph taken in a zoo because they object to zoos? The ethics of wildlife photography are complex and we should be allowed our views without taking it so personally.
The best article I have found on the issue of flash is Does Flash Photography Harm Animals?. The author reports that flash harming animals is a very common complaint, so The Photographer is very much not alone in their opinion. The issue is "controversial". Although the author thinks flash does no harm, they admit that views either way are "speculation" because there hasn't been serious scientific research on this issue. They do say "It is safe to say that nocturnal animals, especially birds, will most likely experience some sort of temporary blindness from exposure to flash at night. But this is temporary, and lasting for perhaps 5-20 minutes before the photoreceptors are fully recharged. It is true that this could hinder the ability to hunt or spot a predator. With no direct permanent damage, the consideration here is a moral one and down to the photographer. However, I would advise to err on the side of caution and not use flash with nocturnal birds." I have seen elsewhere complaints about blinding birds with flash, so that does appear to be a view shared by others. As humans, it can take 30-40 minutes for our eyes to fully acclimatise to the dark (such as for going out to spot shooting stars) and all it takes is a brief flash of car headlights to totally ruin that. So I think it is not unreasonable to think this lizard's night vision may be impaired for many minutes after you have gone.
I strongly suggest you strike out all this nonsense about libel and defamation and respect your fellow photographer has a differing opinion. There are plenty wildlife photographers who use flash, though some just as a fill light rather than main light in darkness, and some believe the animals they have photographed have not reacted badly to it. There doesn't seem to be any scientific evidence to suggest you are right that it is safe, and reasonable explanations for why it could be harmful to some animals in some situations. So I think calling The Photographer "ignorant" is very rude. You should agree to disagree, and move on. If you don't, and you continue with these ill-considered threats, it is in fact you who could be blocked. -- Colin (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Have you forgotten that English is not The Photographer's first language, which is why we have Commons:Staying mellow. He did go on to explain the temporary blindness could make the animal a target for predators. If this does indeed last for 20 minutes (none us know) then I'm sure that will be long enough for you to have moved on. Your opinion that your presence afforded the animal protection while it was blinded is, just that: opinion. You've certainly spooked away all her food. I don't see any specific legal difference between "harm" and "kill" wrt the ethics of wildlife photography. -- Colin (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Charles, "killed" is indeed one possible outcome of being blinded for 20 minutes in a jungle. Charles, please read the links I supplied. It is clear you don't really understand what libel is, but continuing to use that word, after you have been advised not to, is a mistake. It is a serious legal term. If you think you have been libelled then contact WMF and desist from editing here until the matter has been cleared up. -- Colin (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Interesting, Colin, that you aim all your criticism at me and none at the other party. Would you like to explain why? Charles (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Because it is possible for two reasonable people to come to different opinions about the ethics of using flash in a dark environment with wild animals. Having those differing opinions, and expressing them does not constitute "libel". I'm criticising you because you are the one that is wrong. And because you are behaving in a way that earns people a block. You can't go around making legal accusations about your fellow users. Stop it. -- Colin (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
A second threat of a block from Colin. Charles (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@Charlesjsharp: I know how you feel. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "You've certainly spooked away all her food." Charlesjsharp, can I hire you to stand in my bedroom? Apparently, according to Colin, you have the ability to spook mosquitos. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I've notified the accused user, which wasn't done before. --Túrelio (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  Comment If The Photographer had said "Flash can temporarily reduce the vision of this animal, potentially putting it in danger." instead of making the blunt statement "Flash could kill this animal.", we wouldn't be having this conversation. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I do not think that a sufficient justification exists to sugarcoat reality in order to appease the fragility of one's ego. What's next, refusing to cooperate with fellow editors because they didn't ask nicely? Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
What are you referring to with the phrase "sugarcoat reality" please? Charles (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Jon (and other admins), you may want to look at this edit yesterday, which I have just noticed. Firstly, Charles has deliberately misrepresented The Photographer's comment, saying he claimed "I tried to kill a chameleon". Now, that could be a libellous remark, if it had actually been made. While I thought Charles had simply overreacted, I'm now alarmed that he is making false claims about another. Secondly, Charles has no business disrupting a quite separate FP nomination of The Photographer in order to continue his disagreement. Btw, the edit got reverted. -- Colin (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Jon Kolbert, I don't think that would be sugarcoating at all. "Flash could kill this animal." is clearly a false statement. You can't kill any animal with flash photography. The Photographer is entitled to his opinion, and if he had voiced his concern without suggesting imminent death we likely wouldn't be having this conversation. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Alexis everyone else has moved on beyond the ambiguous but wrong interpretation of that statement as implying the flash itself could actually kill a lizard. It has already been made clear, long before this AN/U was opened, that it is the consequences of the flash on the animal (night vision, stunned, etc) that is the problem. Here's another wildlife photographer defending flash but admitting that it is a contentious subject, that "In wildlife photography the single most important rule is always to maintain the highest levels of ethical practice in order to reduce the impact on a species or creature". And agrees that a flash on a nocturnal animal could cause loss of vision. I don't think any of us really know how long the animal is blinded for.This conservation website says plainly: "Don’t use flash. Using a camera with flash scares animals and can temporarily blind them, leaving them open to predators." If you were driving a car at night and someone set off a flashgun directly in your face from close range, I wouldn't be confident on your ability to keep steering safely. It seems very much that this is an area of controversy in the wildlife photography community, that each photographer uses their judgement, and that it is more important that we respect opposing viewpoints than threaten each other with silly talk of defamation. Charles could have handled this by stating he has high ethics, great concern for animal welfare, and does not believe the flash put the animal in any harm. That would have an been entirely appropriate response. . -- Colin (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
It would be helpful if Colin stops referencing unauthoritative articles in support of his arguments. Every single reference work on reptiles that I've ever seen that uses photographs uses flash photographs. Charles (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you could reference "authoritative articles" on this matter, such as research on the well-being of wildlife after exposure of photography with and without flash. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I can find no mention of a reptile being killed by flash anywhere. The wellbeing of reptiles may have been researched, I've not seen any authoritative research. But that is irrelevent. I never claimed that this chameleon was unconcerned by my presence. I'm sure it was affected in some way as it was probably asleep when the guide found it. Please can you consider the original claim, not the lengthy contributions from Colin. The evidence I rely on is compelling if circumstantial: reference works on reptiles by the World' leading experts all use flash photographs. And these days experts don't kill the animals they study. Charles (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
It isn't my point to try to prove one way or another whether flash is safe (and there is a difference between a fill flash in daylight and a full flash in darkness, and different power levels of flash -- the highest on a powerful gun being high enough to very much startle a human). My point is just that reasonable people disagree on this matter, and that includes Charles and The Photographer. Having an opinion about using flash in darkness on wild animals is much like having an opinion on whether zoos are ethical or whether we should eat meat or use animals for sport. We disagree and some people feel strong enough about it to oppose such a picture. That is not libel. The vegan who claims "Meat is Murder" thinks I behave unethically when consuming farmed meat, and is entitled to their opinion. They haven't defamed me by claiming they think I'm unethical and should change my diet. Charles, this is the point where you say "Ok, I over reacted. Sorry for all the fuss." and go back to working on your new years resolutions. -- Colin (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
If I overreacted it was because of the unequivocal statement by The Photographer that "Flash could kill this animal" (my bold text). That's my complaint. Nothing more. Please read the original post. Charles (talk) 09:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Semantic observation. Using "kill" is a rather common way in English headlines to over-exaggerate things to get readers attention even if most people don't overreact to them. See: Beware: Taking a selfie could kill you, Too much salt could kill you, Drinking Too Much Water Can Kill You, Watch Out: That Dog in Your Bed Could Kill You, Why avoiding sunshine could kill you, etc. Just Google it and you will see; it certainly worked in this case. --Cart (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Lets not take The Photographer's comment out of context, they stated "Flash could kill this animal", there is nothing libel in that also didn't claim that it would but it could (the two have a different meaning, The Photographer's comment no doubt taking into account the different views from research. To be honest, I think that your creating something big out of something that really is nothing. It's wonder this hasn't been closed as no action! Bidgee (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Request to close as there is no action required. @Charlesjsharp: this noticeboard is only for cases where admin action is requested and relevant. By opening the thread with a legal allegation, it became a matter outside the scope of Administrators who are unable to provide legal advice. If you wish to complain about the behaviour of other contributors, please avoid legal language in the future, it will boomerang on you. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abusing multiple accounts: block evasion

Максим Огородник (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Abusing multiple accounts: block evasion
KovalyshynR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_72#Sock_puppetry_and_Copyrights_by_Максим_Огородник
and see User contributions: edits the same files; create similar Template:MOm (compare Template:MO, Template:MaksOhorodnyk, Template:VashMaksym, Template:VashMaksymCreate). Obviously, this is the same person. --Микола Василечко (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Микола Василечко: Ну і що? Що я в цьому акаунті порушив?--KovalyshynR (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
see Commons:Blocking policy. --Микола Василечко (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The user has confirmed that he is the same user! --Микола Василечко (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

BTW if this isn’t vandalism, then what is it? Also KovalyshynR’s answer is ambiguous. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Incnis Mrsi See. --Микола Василечко (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

IMHO all KovalyshynR’s scrabble with {{MaksOhorodnyk}} should be summarily reverted. This account removed the template from hundreds pages and then blanked. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

  Done Indef. blocked by Ymblanter. Yann (talk) 08:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Jackwatson39340301

User is uploading the same file repeatedly without permission: File:Official portrait of PM.jpg, File:Imran khan official portrait.jpg, File:Official portrait of PM Imran Khan.jpg. Also, see revert history at en:Special:Contributions/Jackwatson39340301. Thank you. // sikander { talk } 13:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

  Done Last warning sent, file deleted. Yann (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Birdonetwo

Birdonetwo (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Everything is copyvio, reuploads already deleted files, warned twice. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

  Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Problem with User:FFA P-16

This user calls me long time hounding troll because I reported a picture from him which was made as a photography from a PC screen... --2003:E2:AF06:4F00:88AD:EF69:1B91:5511 17:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

He is a long time hounding troll who uses diffrend/dynamic Ip's. Evidence of this is that he pop-up now who I have used this picture on several pages, (I had used it on an articlepage since a few months , but used it just today for other relatet pages. He tried to hide thisfrom me by using "noping" and also it is a strong evidence of hounding that he postet a message just by that one admin who I had discussions about pictures in the past. So I suppose to block this anonmy trolling&hounding IP.FFA P-16 (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
For what it is worth:
1) Overleg gebruiker:FFA P-16/blockmsg
2) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FFA P-16/Archive]
The Banner (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
FFA P-16, I’m not hounding. As you placed this picture in a lot of articles all over the Wikipedia’s, I just recognized, this is a photography from a screen, because it’s brightness deteriorates fast from the middle to the edges. And you have to prove that you are the person with the original photo. But instead of this, you answered with something not dealing with this matter. --2003:E2:AF06:4F00:88AD:EF69:1B91:5511 18:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
So why you used "NOPING" ? Why you get down on the talkpage of 1vertj if you not trie to hide and not hounding? @the banner, sorry this is off topic, we talk here about a picture and nothing else.FFA P-16 (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Because this is a conversation with a third user and I am allowed to talk to everyone about you without you being noticed. By the way: this is also offtopic, it has nothing to do with our talk about this PC-24 picture. --2003:E2:AF06:4F00:88AD:EF69:1B91:5511 18:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
No, this is not off-topic, FFA P-16. You are accusing a colleague of dirty behaviour, then it is good to put things into perspective. The Banner (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
@The Banner Your stalikng and hounding of me is also dirty behavior. It is very suspect if an dynamic IP- just jump on a picture from me and try to hide that he is talking about me straight to some one who I had once a disput about a picture.FFA P-16 (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
And again: The Banner wrote something which is not you’re opinion and your only answer is «this is hounding»/«this ist stalking». Nobody will take your answers serious if you contribute to discussions like that all the time. --2003:E2:AF06:4F00:88AD:EF69:1B91:5511 20:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
The truth is that someone pointed me at this discussion, asking if "this guy" was the well known FFA P-16 known on the Dutch WP. I took a look and confirmed. Nothing to do with stalking. The Banner (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah very interesting so someone is akeing you about " was the well known FFA P-16 known on the Dutch WP". We are here not at the Duch WP, and I did NOT put the Picture in question on the "Duch WP" so this looks realy like someone put up a hounding against me. There is no open sing that you get contacted on commons, on English or netherland Wikipedia.FFA P-16 (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Can you please translate your answer in the English language? Thanks in advance. The Banner (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
1. It is understandable english. 2. You said once you understand german, so you should understand it anyway. 3. I know you well enough, it is waste of time to talk with you, so if it makes you so dam happy delet this picture. I don't waste any more time for you. ByeFFA P-16 (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Mendduets

The sockmaster has their accounts blocked indefinitely. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Instead of thanks for fixing bad SVG by Adobe Obscurator, I received insults:

Can you explain this conduct assuming the guy isn’t actually a sock- or meatpuppet? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The account also has a grudge against me because I framed File:Mainland-pre-Austronesian-cultures.png (hist • logs • abuse log) for {{Duplicate}}. I did it only after ensuring that rsvg renders text labels in the the respective SVG image properly (which—due to Mendduets’s warring—it does no more). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Ekscuse mééi, there is zero insult against you in the summary of my two reversions. Don't try to create a bad image about me. Mendduets (talk) 12:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
This originates from the fact that this user nominated for the deletion of a svg version of my map ( and a language tree also, which is already deleted). The reason I uploaded both png and svg versions of a map at the same time is because if other people happen to need to use my uploaded maps, but find out that they (the maps) don't fit their requirements, they could change the svg versions of the maps, while keep their png versions intact for other usages. If they find that the uploaded maps meet their requirements, they can use the png versions of the maps. And in fact, many maps on Wikimedia Commons have both of their png and svg versions existed without being deleted. Mendduets (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
The “language tree” in question is File:Austro-Tai-proper.png (hist • logs • abuse log) – when I fixed buggery and removed trash from its vector original, I marked the PNG derivative as a duplicate. Hadn’t I, indeed? Please, don’t blame me for the sysop Wdwd not leaving a redirect behind. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I've been harassed by user Incnis Mrsi

User Incnis_Mrsi has harassed me. He has claimed that the png and svg versions of my map [10] are identical, and thus one of its versions has to be deleted. But there are tons of other maps being identical that have never been deleted on Commons Wikimedia, such as these: World regional languages map [11], [12]; Languages world map [13], [14], [15]; Tai-kadai-language [16], [17]. This issue has been discussed here [18].

The problem is that this person has specifically targeted me. Why has he never reported such maps as the ones listed above? why it's only me? IT IS as if this person has some long-term resentment against me. I'm pretty upset about this harassment. Mendduets (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Pointing out duplicity of files is so far from harassment that it doesn't really belong on this board. We would have expected you to have (1) discussed with @Incnis Mrsi: and only coming here if you failed to agree and (2) notifiying him/er of this discussion. No admin action required here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
OK. But I feel very annoyed about this. When I feel extremely annoyed, there may be bad things happen. Mendduets (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Mendduets failed to agree. And it’s already #Mendduets, by the way. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@Mendduets: Is that a threat? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi, Mendduets, Rodhullandemu, and Wdwd: I've moved this section for clarity. Incnis Mrsi, on Wdwd's talk page you specifically said Mendduets is a sock- or meatpuppet. Do you have proof for that? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: No. I just want to express that I'm really annoyed. Mendduets (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 and image cropping

ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

This user makes extensive use of the crop tool, usually with the stated intention to 'remove borders' or 'remove watermark'. Unfortunately their crops are very often damaging to images in unnecessary ways:

  • They crop out parts of the actual image subject.
  • They neglect other techniques such as rotation, digital watermark removal etc, resulting in unnecessary cropping
  • They appear to lack judgement as to what is a good crop to make

The root of the issue appears to be that they wish to crop a large number of images and can use the crop tool yet have no appreciation that there may be better ways to achieve a result - basically they only have a hammer, so everything appears to look like a nail.

Please see this discussion on their talk page where it is pointed out to them that, in their crops of aviation images, they have removed parts of the actual aircraft unnecessarily, and created horribly lopsided crops unnecessarily. Their only response, even with concrete examples, is that they do not see any problem. This is frustrating because of the large number of crops they make and the consequent large potential for damage. I confess that, after several rounds of this refusal to see the obvious issues, my frustration has become apparent.

The user does not seem to appreciate that cropping is only one tool, and when the results of a rectangular crop are not the best option they lack the judgement to consider other approaches and either leave the image for an editor more competent with these techniques or request assistance at a Graphic lab, etc. - instead proceeding with poorly conceived and executed crops.

Below is a non-inclusive list of some of their recent crops where unnecessary damage has needed to be rectified:

Since I am concerned that this is an ongoing issue which can potentially affect many images detrimentally and the user is not receptive to talk-page discussion I am bringing it here in the hope that someone may make more progress than I have been able to. -- Begoon 02:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @Dyolf77, Tarawneh, as there may be a language barrier component to this problem.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you've said that before, several times. The fact that I have been unable to help you to understand that, for instance, unnecessarily chopping off part of an aircraft's wing in a picture of that aircraft, chopping off parts of pictured people, removing up to and over 28% of an image purely to get rid of easily removed text which needed no cropping at all - with the result being not just a damaged subject but also a horribly unbalanced image, and failing to consider the advantage of simple straightening rotations etc, resulting in unnecessary image loss, etc, etc, is causing unnecessary damage is why I found it necessary to start this discussion. Some examples of all these things are listed above, and most of them have been explained to you on your talk page - in addition to the explanations in the correcting uploads. Your expressed lack of understanding is, frankly, baffling to me. Given the large number of images which you crop, this lack of understanding and good judgement is my major concern because of the potential for further damage. -- Begoon 07:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)COM:OVERWRITE would put some of those cropping into to "no" territory. Bidgee (talk) 07:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Arguably so, yes. Minor cropping of borders and removal of watermarks is generally OK under that guideline, I think, except for images with excepted statuses - but one of the issues here, amongst others is that while that is often the stated reason for this user's crops, they actually do much more, often in a damaging way, and often due to lack of judgement and failure to consider any alternatives to just chopping away with the crop tool. -- Begoon 07:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Begoon forgot to mention Commons:Village pump/Archive/2018/11 #Rotated. Watermark removed. Adjusted levels. Removed borders. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

At the moment I'd be happy if somebody could make them understand that their crops are damaging images, and get them to stop, whether that is by even more explanation of just why and how what they are doing is damaging and an actual understanding and undertaking from them to take the advice on board and cease the damage, or, failing that, by them being prevented from continuing. Their absolute failure to ever recognise that there is any issue on any occasion it is brought to their attention does not bode well for the former, however. -- Begoon 10:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Just adding a note that I have now looked through most of the user's 'cropped' uploads for December, most of which were marked 'removed border' yet removed often significant parts of the image as well, and found 50+ where unnecessary parts of the image were removed, with varying degrees of detrimental effect on the image which were mostly straightforward to have avoided:
List of corrected "crops"
  1. File:IHF_TransNusa_Fokker_70;_Near_HLP_2016_(30035653734).jpg
  2. File:IHF_TransNusa_Fokker_70;_Near_HLP_2016_(30579041141).jpg
  3. File:Batik_Air_Boeing_737-8GP;_@BPN_2016_(28143080282).jpg
  4. File:Lion_Air_Boeing_737-9GP-ER;@JOG_2014_(14354709147).jpg
  5. File:KalStar_ATR_42-300;_@BPN_2016_(28169892231).jpg
  6. File:Lion_Air_Boeing_737-8GP;_@BPN_2016_(28144358922).jpg
  7. File:Lion_Air_Boeing_737-9GP(ER);_@BPN_2016_(28144363582).jpg
  8. File:Garuda_Indonesia_Boeing_737-8U3;_@JOG_2014_(14563597953).jpg
  9. File:Garuda_Indonesia_Boeing_737-8AS-WL_(14542007544).jpg
  10. File:IHF_Lion_Air_and_Batik_Air_Boeing_737-9GP-ER(WL);_@BPN_2014_(14872447083).jpg
  11. File:Lion_Air_Boeing_737-9GP-ER;_@BPN_2016_(28143845472).jpg
  12. File:Lion_Air_Boeing_737-9GP-ER_(14623443207).jpg
  13. File:Citilink_Indonesia_Airbus_A320-214;_Enroute_CGK-BPN_2014_(14622579137).jpg
  14. File:Kustwerk_Katwijk_aan_zee-18.jpg
  15. File:Old_Town,_Cluj-Napoca,_Romania_-_panoramio.jpg
  16. File:Kustwerk_Katwijk_aan_zee-13.jpg
  17. File:Landschap-Duin-Berkheide-Katwijk.jpg
  18. File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-1987-0417-012,_BFC_Dynamo_-_FC_Carl_Zeiss_Jena_3-1.jpg
  19. File:Michael_Trope_during_his_NFL_agent_days_in_the_1970s_(cropped).jpg
  20. File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-U0904-0302,_Berlin,_Konsularvertrag_DDR-USA.jpg
  21. File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-1983-0616-030,_Birgit_Meineke,_Daniela_Übel.jpg
  22. File:Misho-Portrait-PanPhoto.jpg
  23. File:Tchaikovsky-11_(cropped).jpg
  24. File:Allianz_Arena_-_panoramio_(2).jpg
  25. File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-12247-0004,_Nesl.jpg
  26. File:The_Art_Jury,_Wayman_Elbridge_Adams,_1921_(cropped).jpg
  27. File:Kamal_akthar_tyagi.jpg
  28. File:Kantongerecht_(4542604479).jpg
  29. File:Nijmegen_(4274162825).jpg
  30. File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-1990-0823-312,_Chemnitzer_FC,_Rico_Steinmann.jpg
  31. File:Rietplas_(4518746476).jpg
  32. File:Ray_of_light_(6127686175).jpg
  33. File:Noord-barge_(4215480192).jpg
  34. File:Zomer_in_Zeeland_(7514127494).jpg
  35. File:De_Vuurvogel_op_zijn_oude_plaats_bij_de_dierentuin_van_Emmen.jpg
  36. File:Sunset_at_the_Rietplas_(4504594443).jpg
  37. File:Omgeving_Oranjekanaal_(4241136853).jpg
  38. File:Emmerdennen_(5072928206).jpg
  39. File:Oranjekanaal_(4241905302).jpg
  40. File:Reflection_(4497936866).jpg
  41. File:Zuidbarge_(5716762002).jpg
  42. File:Zuidbarge_(4218869856).jpg
  43. File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-N0330-0043,_FC_Carl_Zeiss_Jena_-_1._FC_Magdeburg_1-2.jpg
  44. File:Ast-logo-rgb_(cropped).png
  45. File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-1990-0810-021,_Mannschaftsfoto_FC_Chemnitz.jpg
  46. File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-R0306-0009,_Klaus_Siebert,_Karl-Heinz_Menz.jpg
  47. File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-P0425-0048,_BFC_Dynamo_-_Dynamo_Dresden_1-1.jpg
  48. File:Ludy_Benjamin_(cropped).jpg
  49. File:Reflection_(133471275).jpeg
  50. File:Sushil_Wadhwani.jpg
  51. File:In_Flight_Mode_(137104709).jpeg
  52. File:Self_copy.jpg
  53. File:In_Flight_Mode_(137104731).jpeg
  54. File:Guido_gorgatti_(cropped).jpg
  55. File:Abdel-Baset Abdel-Samad 1966 (cropped).jpg
Whether or not one agrees that every single crop which I corrected was damaging in a major way, a large proportion unarguably were, some frankly awful, and the fact that the user has never acknowledged any concerns at all, and does not seem to understand the issues, continues to worry me if they intend to carry on cropping large numbers of images in the future. -- Begoon 04:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Cute… a guy pursuing this “improvement” agenda uploads such pics as File:مصلحة الشهر العقاري، القاهرة الجديدة 02.jpg himself. And he, evidently, isn’t well-disposed to listen to complaints. Admins, how about blocking the wastecrop-maker, at last? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, you do have to smile (or grimace...) Since one of the many damaging things the user often does when cropping is to chop off parts of people from existing photos, maybe uploading them 'pre-chopped' is just an attempt to save time/resources...? Joking apart, though, I wasn't asking for them to be blocked at this stage, just stopped from making damaging crops, preferably by discussion and agreement. I do confess that the 'discussion' part of that seems pretty hard to get started though, without any real, constructive response to date... -- Begoon 11:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you. It's a shame that they don't seem willing or able to understand, acknowledge and work with advice given to correct the problems, but correcting the damage they have been causing to a large number of images has become very frustrating and time-consuming, so the destructive cropping does need to stop one way or another. -- Begoon 07:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Yann IMHO shouldn’t use mass-production stuff like {{Test4}} talking to an established user. An overt comparison to vandals disparages this user unnecessarily. Of course, possessing a huge admin-action counter—without caring for quality—brings a decent advantage in various wiki litigation and respect in some quarters, albeit not in mine. Why does Begoon—seemingly a proponent of netiquette for some other cases—encourage this bollocks? It’s not the first or second case of permissive use of such vocabulary as “vandalism” by Yann. Here we see a legitimate content grievance which has nothing to do with vandalism discourse. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: Sorry, but you are not helpful in any way. Begoon is right, this user's crops are, at least in some cases, vandalism. This needs to stop. So far what have you done to help fixing this issue? Regards, Yann (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Now we see Yann’s bollocks here as well. For “what have done to help fixing this issue”, I attracted attention to these mass actions, by this user namely, well before Begoon, and proposed some mitigation strategy. How many active users—sysops included—read the Village pump? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I "encouraged" - I said "File:Dubbo Zoo Cheetah (3149957810).jpg was so destructive, hacking off parts of the pictured animal on all 4 edges, that one might almost describe it as vandalism." and I stand by that. Additionally, at some point, when a user has been made aware over a period of months (see talk page history) that their actions are damaging images (images being the reason we are here, after all) yet deliberately continues to do so then in my opinion that becomes pretty indistinguishable from vandalism - knowingly causing damage. I might not have used the template Yann did, I'm not a big fan of templates, but I thanked Yann for taking some very necessary action when softer approaches have failed on numerous occasions. You called for a block above (with strong criticism and a pointedly struck through description of the user - is that not 'disparaging'? Pot? Kettle?) - I haven't done that yet. -- Begoon 08:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong in blocks if they stop an ongoing disruption and are not based like the action against Alexis_Jazz proposed by Christian_Ferrer and Colin. Begoon, how about becoming a Commons admin? Or proposing one or two good candidates? Many problems stem simply from shortage of workhands. As for “waste-maker”, I was bashed for this in en.Wikipedia as well but holy shit… how many waste-makers do we see around? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
The answer to your last question is "too many", but if I openly described them as such and then criticised someone else for "disparaging" them I wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on if someone pointed out my apparent double standards. Incidentally, your VP thread from November mainly concerned generation loss which is a real concern but not quite the same as the concerns I raised here about destructively hacking images unnecessarily and poorly with the crop tool due to lack of judgement and failure to consider other options. I first raised that on their talk page in January 2018, and yes, I should have brought it here sooner. I've fixed 60+ images for the just over 4 weeks of their contributions I've looked at properly so far, so who knows how many it will be if I keep looking. Anyone is welcome to help with that. -- Begoon 09:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Centralloft2018

Centralloft2018 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Uploads and reuploads (5 times) the same deleted file. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  Done Blocked 1 month. Jon Kolbert (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Sumanuil

Sumanuil (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Look at the file and its talk page. User:Sumanuil engage in edit war and not ready to listen. He/she make edit on assumption. Admin intervention is needed.

 

. --AntanO 20:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Does this look like a frugivore to anyone else? It's been removed from the English Wikipedia page for Cynopterus brachyotis for good reason (namely, mis-identification), and not by me. I'm simply trying to fix it, and he's the one reverting me. Bringing this here is unnecessary. All that is needed is a bat expert to tell us what this actually is. Sumanuil (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@AntanO and Sumanuil: I ask the German Biology wizards @ de:Wikipedia:Redaktion_Biologie/Bestimmung#Mederflaus. Let's wait and see who has to do the dishes for a week.   --Hedwig in Washington (mail?)!

Thanks. Although I'd rather not live with another editor. We can be troublesome. Sumanuil (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  Not done No admin action is needed. Taivo (talk) 07:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Pugusa

Pugusa (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Hey guys,

I randomly faced a very weird contribution File:Rodrigo.jpg the description have a spam text, and then I looked the others contributions of this user, and all of they seems weird. Rodrigo is a very common name in Brazil and the text is in Pt-br, looks deliberate, the photos are probably copyvio...

Could you pleas check and took the necessaries providences?

Tks. x0x0 -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 19:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Abc123577

Hi, Abc123577 has just posted this on the Help Desk,
Whilst they've not vandalised I feel it's slightly bizarre a new user would come here out of all places in the world and essentially tell the world their boyfriend is a paedophile .....,
I'm certainly inclined to believe this is a troll more than an actual new user but either way they don't seem to be here to improve our project,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 00:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Possible. I blocked them for one week. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Oops sorry forgot about this!, Many thanks User:Hedwig in Washington :), Great to have you back in Project :)   , Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 22:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  Done

User:Tony Morgan1 spammer

Tony Morgan1 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

This user is spamming Commons with advertising. He is also altering older Help desk posts to insert ads: [19] MKFI (talk) 07:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for a week by Túrelio.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

User blocked indef by Herbythyme . I'v hidden all edits.   --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Beralbdom

Bad editions related to images of the new Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro.

He first opened Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bolsonaro.jpg to delete an image, has tried to overwrite this same image three times with the official image, that has incompatible CC licenses in on Flickr, and in [http://www2.planalto.gov.br/acompanhe-o-planalto/foto-oficial Brazilian presidency site. Also has tried to delete the imput of other users, not once, but twice, albeit he was warned not to do it.

What is more strange, is the fact several uploads of this image here in Commons and editions on several languages Wikipedias. For example, the lead image of the Bolsonaro article in pt Wikipedia was defaced by ip 168.121.138.0 and User:Rhodolfo Riber. This IP and last user seem to be a single SPA. And more socks seem to pop, like User:MarioSergioVS uploaded File:Jair Bolsonaro (foto oficial 10-01-2019).png (on January 12 21.49) and Beralbdom added this images to DE Wikipedia (January 11 00.14) and EN Wikipedia user Cueca2001 add it to that Wiki. Also User:Cultureman80 uploaded the same image in File:Jair M. Bolsonaro Foto Oficial.jpg. Just strange but coincidence or is someone using SPA accounts? Tm (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

And just now another user User talk:Silbof uploads the same image in File:Foto Oficial Presidente Jair Bolsonaro.jpg and in 21 minutes is edited by User:Beralbdom. Just another coincidence? Tm (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  Comment I´ve asked to user Chronus, that is also participating in the DR mentioned above, to give his imput about all the bad edits of the users above, as he probably knows more about a situation that is happening in pt Wikipedia related to the official image of Jair Bolsonaro, in[ [20]. Tm (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  Info I just have blocked the account for three days due to edit waring on this page, what I consider as vandalism. Feel free to extend (or lift) the block. --jdx Re: 03:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  Comment Thanks, Jdx, for the speedy resolution. Tm (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
See Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Beralbdom. I deleted all copyvios, and added some warnings. Yann (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Theft by a Commons user

I noticed one of my images, File:Garden snail moving down the Vennbahn in disputed territory (DSCF5879).jpg is being sold on shutterstock [21] by a user named AndrewMarwan (as his own).

I've reported it immediately to the SS team. Upon looking into that user, I found there is a Commons user with the same username that also lives in Morocco and uploaded some of the same images on Commons and SS, for example File:Rhinoceros in the zoo of Rabat, Morocco.jpg and [22] as well as various websites with the same avatar such as File:Marrakesh 12.JPG and [23].

I would like for this user to be banned from our community.

--Trougnouf (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Trougnouf:
  • I'm pretty certain, he has the same username, avatar portrait, and images on multiple websites (including here, I assume the ones of Morocco are his) as I've mentioned. --Trougnouf (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Did AndrewMarwan upload only one of your images? Did they take pictures from other Commons users as well?
  • Uploading their own content to Commons with a Creative Commons license while selling it on a stock photo website where the licensee wouldn't have to attribute or sharealike is perfectly legitimate. Is it possible they accidentally uploaded a photo to the stock photo website that wasn't theirs, for example, a photo of yours that they saved because they really liked it and later accidentally uploaded in a batch? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm far from his only victim, I noticed he has also stolen User:Vbachem's File:Tunnel-Bergbahn-Heidelberg-Germany-02.jpg ([24]), User:Karora's File:Matanaka - Granary, Privy & Schoolhouse.jpg ([25]) User:Sparktour's File:SUSTech before the typhoon.jpg ([26]), User:GabrielleMerk's File:Sion-Windows.jpg ([27]), User:Sally V's File:Doel Nuclear power plant and cooling tower.jpg ([28]), User:F. Riedelio's File:004 2017 11 15 Architektonisches Eisen.jpg ([29]), User:GabrielleMerk's File:KWO-Grimselsee-Dam.jpg ([30]), User:Fyrtaarn's File:Berghau-Tunnel.jpg ([31]), User:AlixSaz's File:Pier in Caspian.jpg ([32]), User:GabrielleMerk's File:Lago-di-Lucendro.jpg ([33]), User:Poco a poco's File:Anfiteatro, El Jem, Túnez, 2016-09-04, DD 38-40 HDR.jpg ([34]), User:Crisco 1492's File:Ash in Yogyakarta during the 2014 eruption of Kelud 07.jpg ([35]), User:Haytem93's File:A big male Addax showing as the power of his horns.jpg ([36]), User:Thiotrix's File:Crab spider on Campanula barbata.JPG ([37]), User:Kyriondaniel's File:Water tower Mittweida.jpg ([38]), User:Ввласенко's File:Pelophylax esculentus 002.jpg ([39]), User:Alupus's File:Fahrleitungswald Aachen West.jpg ([40]), User:Othmane.elam's File:Landscape Chrouda, between Chefchaouen and Oued Laou.jpg ([41]), ... It never stops as long as I keep searching. --Trougnouf (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  Done Indef block. Absoutely unacceptable "business" --A.Savin 03:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Cool – “reported it… to the SS team”, but Einsatzgruppen from Commons are more prompt ☺
Seriously, where Special:ListFiles/MarwanAndrew are from? Any idea? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Colin has kindly drawn my attention to the fact that one of my own images (File:Oweston sting fish for sale at Tsukiji Fishmarket, Tokyo-30.jpg) has been taken and is being mis-used by Andrew Marwan here. I have filed a DMCA takedown notice with Shutterstock. If anyone else wants to do so, contact details can be found here. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

A quick response by Shutterstock. Within an hour and a half of receiving the notice they had taken the image down. MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@A.Savin: is there any proof that AndrewMarwan and MarwanAndrew are the same person? Whoever is behind the Shutterstock account is stealing photos anyway. What makes you believe they didn't also steal the username, which would indeed be very convenient? How do you know you didn't just indefblock a victim? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Because there is not solely a name coincidence, but also that he uploaded same images on Shutterstock as he uploaded under same name on Commons? --A.Savin 23:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@A.Savin: so if I register on ShutterStock using the name "A.Savin" and start selling your pictures as well as those of others, you'll indefblock yourself? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what's your point and what you want from me? Unblock? -- Surely not at this point. Name hijacking is theoretically possible, but rather unlikely for the name of a less known user with low activity level. But should I err, he's still free to edit his talkpage, send mails etc.pp--A.Savin 23:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@A.Savin: Actually more likely. If you use the name of a high profile user, you'll be caught sooner. Proof could have probably been found: if he uploaded some photo to Shutterstock before uploading it to Commons, it's the same person. Shutterstock has removed his profile entirely now, so there's nothing left to check. @World's Lamest Critic: where are the other profiles? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I've taken a few screenshots but shutterstock doesn't display the upload date. --Trougnouf (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Let's just leave the conversation here; perhaps he never returns again. If he requests unblock, we might just grant it as we have no hard evidence against the Commons user, but until that happens it's a moot point. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Given the fact the usernames are the same and given the fact he's uploaded the same images here and at SS I would say that's plenty of evidence!,
I for one under no circumstance believe this user should ever be allowed back on this platform given the deceitful behaviour they've shown, Had I been an admin I would've indeffed him and revoked all TP access so that our times would not be further wasted!,
I appreciate we all make mistakes but reusing other peoples images and receiving a huge wad of cash for their usage is not a mistake. –Davey2010Talk 02:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Davey2010, this is Shutterstock we are talking about so unlikely to be "a huge wad of cash". You get 25 cents a download and have to earn $35 before they pay you anything from the account. With only a few dozen images among 257 million others, it is unlikely this user was making much, if anything -- you need a microstock portfolio of thousands of images, frequently updated, to make even minimum-wage levels of money. -- Colin (talk) 09:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah okay thanks I wan't aware of that, Well I still stand by my comment even if they do get pittance for it. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 09:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Davey2010 would revoke all talk-page access? In fact, I also conjectured about an impostor account, but estimated the probability for this even quite low. Blocks are preventive – if a user came under such grave suspicion, then it’s better to have the account blocked. But if there is an alibi, then the user must have a possibility to present it without invoking other questions about possible impersonation. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Indeed I would, On a technicality my block and TP access-revocation would only be punitive not preventive but in my eyes as thousands of people have submitted their images in good faith here I think it's morally wrong to try and make money from that so in this specific case I would do as I said. –Davey2010Talk 10:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

(outdent) Davey2010 there's actually nothing legally or morally wrong with selling the pictures that are on Commons. Legally, one needs to obey the licence requirements, if any. Morally, one needs to give credit even if copyright or licence don't require it. All our images permit commercial use and the creation of derivative works. The legal problems here are the lack of attribution for CC BY, the false claim they they are his own work, and offering them under Shutterstock's royalty-free licence terms which are not "share alike" with CC BY-SA. Of course, one would have to "add value" for such a financial transaction to make any sense. For example, offer them on a DVD or Blu Ray, print them on a 2019 wall calendar, or use some lovely Instagram filter on them to make a derivative work. -- Colin (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Well I (personally) still think it's morally wrong but all that being said I'm not an admin nor am I the voice of Commons (thank god :) ), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

ART CHINA

User:ART CHINA uploaded tons of modern artwork which they falsely license as own work. At the very least, they must send OTRS, but it is not even clear to me whether artists they upload are notable or they just promote them (see 李东涵 as a clear example of promotion). Unless there are objections, I am going to mass-delete their uploads.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi,
I added a warning. We should not get more files without a permission. As for the files already uploaded, I would wait for a week, and see if a permission is coming. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Yann. Sure, we are not in hurry.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Christian Mas Garcia

Christian Mas Garcia (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Same copyrighted screenshots as usual. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  Done Blocked indef, doesn't get it or doesn't want to get it. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Jovan Kevin

Jovan Kevin (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

User doesn't seem to understand anything about licenses and copyright. After abusing of {{PD-IDGov}} he now adds {{GFDL}} on copyrighted files. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I added a warning and deleted one blatant copyvio. If they persist, we'll block temporarily. all the files without a permission are flagged. --Ruthven (msg) 18:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  Done One week blocked. HUGE list of copyright violations. Yann (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Coccinellarossa

Coccinellarossa (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Vandalism only account. After beeing blocked on Wikipedia Italia for uploading copyrighted images uploads them now on Commons. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Just for the sake of completeness: on it.wiki this account was blocked because also the text of the article was repeatedly published as copyright infringement (copied from an official web-site, several times since december 2016). This is a single-purpose account that apparently is devoted to the promotion of a singer.--L736E (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  Done Blocked 1 day for now, and all files nuked. --Ruthven (msg) 18:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thescrubbythug

I reported a ton of images uploaded by this user a few months ago, who initially joined with zero understanding of copyright law and uploaded many, many now-deleted copyrighted images. They seemed to take the hint after being blocked, and settled, for a while, on uploading Crown Copyright images that I didn't understand enough to know about, and left it.

However, I checked one of his images today (File:TomHughes1969.jpg), and I noted that it was claiming a CC-BY license, which I thought was very unlikely. I then found the image on the National Archives site and clicked the copyright link at the bottom of that page, which makes clear that they're copyrighted and says absolutely nothing about a CC-BY license. I was bemused about where the CC-BY claim had come from, and I eventually found the copyright statement on the main page of the NAA site, which very confusingly explains that the website is CC-BY licensed but not the collection, which may have various copyright situations going on.

Long story short, the CC-BY claim - and there are quite a lot of images he's uploaded using it - is absolutely incorrect. I don't know enough about the finer points of copyright law to know if the Crown Copyright images were actually correctly used: the term is 50 years, but unpublished works are permanently protected, so if they're considered unpublished works, literally everything he's ever uploaded is non-free. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Bueller? I've just reported hundreds of copyright violations and administrators have just ignored it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Pinging Yann who previously blocked this editor - Given this editor has uploaded other deleted images IMHO they should be indeffed with all images deleted (A few of the images were infact taken in 1979 meaning they're not over the 50 year threshold), We cannot trust this editor so I don't see why they should be allowed to continue uploading here. –Davey2010Talk 23:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
As they were blocked last year for this I assumed they immediately continued from where they left off hence the indef/delete but apparently I was wrong so my sincere apologies Thescrubbythug. –Davey2010Talk 13:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@The Drover's Wife: I notified the subject of this discussion for you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I'll take your word regarding the CC-BY with the photos from 1969 onwards. Genuinely thought said photos were acceptable going by what was said on the site. Will remove all offending photos immediately --Thescrubbythug (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
It is done. Every offending image has been removed from all Wikipedia pages, and has been requested for deletion. All other images that I have uploaded are quite firmly public domain and date up to 1968 at latest. I hope this brings the matter to a close --Thescrubbythug (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Uploading from a site that is under a free licence while photos being unfree sounds like an honest mistake. This is something to be careful about, and maybe this user should have been warned about such things (with files of course being deleted), but to suggest that we indefblock the user for that is an overreaction (in my opinion). ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 06:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  Comment Commons:Deletion requests/File:TomHughes1969.jpg‎. Yann (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

เก่งพงศ์ ตั้งอรุณสันติ

เก่งพงศ์ ตั้งอรุณสันติ (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Spam only account. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  Done One week block for a start, all files and pages deleted. Feel free to block longer if needed. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Reutern_family

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Josh_Wood. This page is a falsification. The person Josh Wood has no connection whatsoever with the von Reutern von Nolcken family and he is not a Count von Reutern or Baron von Nolcken

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Reutern_family. In this page mr Wood has falsely added himself. He is not Count/Graf von Reutern. Since 1995 the present Graf/Count von Reutern is Wolf Graf von Reutern Baron von Nolcken. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.217.183.118 (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the history of both pages, this seems to be the result of persistent hoaxing by the user JinxAndTonic. clpo13(talk) 18:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Someone needs an indef block here.
Who is Josh Wood? en:Josh Wood is no help at all. Nor en:Joshua Dylan Wood. en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Wood not much better. How do we have a category at Commons full of Hollywood red carpet photos, when en:WP AfDed the BLP some years ago? If this person has since become a notable producer, then can we get a simple stub up on en:WP? Otherwise I think the gallery page and maybe the category, even the contents ought to go. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


Solvik~svwiki created several accounts to target and delete information across wiki, genealogical websites in relation to Joshua Wood and his connection through his grandfather Count Boris von Reutern (whom Mr Colliander proclaimed non-existent) to the Counts von Reutern and the Barons von Nolcken including family coat of arms. Solvik~svwiki is Jan Colliander is a well known vandal based in Sweden, who has been vandalising and requesting multiple genealoagical websites to change, alter information in regards to von Reutern and von Nolcken families for the past 2 and a half years, he wrote an article about himself on Swedish Wikipeadia sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Colliander without any evidence to support his claims or links to the documents of any kind, he continues slandering after being warned multiple times this time isnt any different. Solvik~svwiki aka Jan Colliander has no connection to von Reutern and von Nolcken families as he claims, there is no evidence to support any of his claims including his connection to the family via Carl Wachtmeister. Unlike Jan Colliander whoever he may be, Joshua Wood as he commonly known who has comfortably lived with the name for very long time until few people in five different countries appeared to be using his grandfather's titles and styles has all the documents confirming his titles, styles and post-nominals which are indeed recognised by several countries including UK and Russia. Check his so-called contibutions, I would also recommend to check one of the IP addresses used by him 84.217.183.118 --161.129.70.182 03:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


User:Solvik~svwiki, User:84.217.183.118 and sv:Jan Colliander is indeed one person he slanders and aggressively vandalises articles as well as submits false claims and information across wikipedia and external websites in relation to Wachtmeister, Reutern and Nolcken families. Check following pages about Jan Colliander written by Jan Colliander, Wiki discussion board on Jan Colliander, an article about the person who reported Josh Wood's wiki commons page and nominated it for deletion based on false claims. He wrote an article about himself, it was nominated for deletion and he removed the tag himself, I don't know what magic they do in Sweden - it stayed somehow. He has been reported several times to many different admins for vandalism, he was reported to admins on genealogical websites for bluntly vandalising pages there, but he pays membership there and money do talk there, so they don't do anything to stop him. He wrote another article linking himself to sv:Carl Wachtmeister (1869–1941), even Swedish specialising in genealogy in his own country couldn't find his connection to Carl Wachtmeister nor verify his far fetched story and there was also false statements made by him and it was reported to Swedish admin Nomination to soil who simply wrote following Discussion, basically that its okay for Solvik~svwiki to write articles about himself. So I don't see reversing his actions as crime. He has not provided a single evidence of his claims despite conflict of interests etc. In fact his name (which he has pasted himself) was removed from Carl Wachtmeister's page by Swedish contributors. --JinxAndTonic (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)--

  • I don't think Wikimedia is big enough for both of you two editors. Now one of you isn't telling the truth - which one is it? Perhaps you might like to show some reliable, secondary evidence to believe any of these claims? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Mahdi.305

An first I conjectured a newbie confused in image formats and usage, but Revision of File:Europe_polar_stereographic_Caucasus_Urals_boundary.svg indicates that the problem is more severe. Anyone with necessary language skills—Mardetanha, 4nn1l2, Mhhossein…—reprimand this user for clueless “improvement” attempts, please; the user isn’t seemingly a true vandal. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I left a comment at their talk page (actually asked them what their intention was with those edits). I don't think the user is involved in vandalism or mischievous behaviour; they are just probably confused. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks 4nn1l2. --Mhhossein talk 12:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeu Phim Viet

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  Done I blocked the user for a week. All uploads are deleted or nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 08:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Pugusa

Pugusa (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Again...

All files of this uploader have spamming text at the description, could you pleas check and took the necessaries providences? Images are probably under some copyvio also.

Tks. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 19:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  • While it’s best to have this user blocked to avoid more nonsense, descriptions can be sanitized; none of these images have any hits in Google Images, strangely enough. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Mipato8

Mipato8 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios after block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

  Done Second block, no useful edit. 3 months. Yann (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

FrancescoEnriqueCapone

FrancescoEnriqueCapone (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios after block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

  Done Second block, no useful edit, and vandalism. 3 months. Yann (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

פולי14

פולי14 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Everything is copyvio, no useful edits, already warned twice. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked and remaining copyvios deleted. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Amishai GG

Amishai GG (talk · contribs) continuously uploads copyvio images of new governors and/or state elected officials, despite numerous warnings to stop. They’ve been told both on here and the English Wikipedia. The latest one, which was of Ohio governor Mike DeWine, was uploaded on 17 January (but has sense been deleted). See User talk:Amishai GG for their complete history. Thanks, Corky 12:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

  Done All Amishai's uploads (except one) are either deleted or nominated for deletion, so I blocked him/her for a week. Taivo (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

STILL not getting any help for anybody here

How do I get questions answered? I managed to post a question a couple months ago, but I can't find out what the responses have been, nor how to respond to them. AND I STILL have never been answered on how to use all your brackets, tildes close brackets, slashes .... Seriously. This is NOT YOUR ORDINARY web site. Why can't you make it intelligible?

Please send me an email so I can find and actually read a reply. Thanks.

Scott <email> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsdcraig (talk • contribs) 19:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gsdcraig: I already answered on your talk page. We usually do not answer by email. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Migelo04 uploading copyright violations

Would someone mind indef blocking User:Migelo04 and deleting all their contributions as copyright violations? The first block doesn't seem to have worked. Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  Done. Blocked, deleted. Materialscientist (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Alvaro Marques Hijazo

keeps uploading copyvios for some reason--Buckaroo bob 91 (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

  Done --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington: thanks--Buckaroo bob 91 (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

GUILLOT

GUILLOT (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Everything is copyvio since 8 years. It has been explained several times to user (here in English and French, in his native language) to go thru OTRS without success. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  Done 1 week break to start with. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Lucauniverso

User keeps uploading copyvios--Buckaroo bob 91 (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Buckaroo bob 91: what copyvios? I am uploading free images from it.wiki.--Lucauniverso (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The picture is not copyvios, @Buckaroo bob 91: I need explanations--NewDataB (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Misuse of the vandalism noticeboard

There is an opinion that Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism “isn't inundated with nonsense”. But at Special:PermanentLink/335368863#Yurilizarazo we see Patrick Rogel using a vandalism accusation to advance his agenda and, expectedly, retaliation from the attacked used. How many Commoners may entrust Patrick Rogel with further “vandalism” reports? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

  • In complete agreement with Incnis Mrsi on this one. Accusations of vandalism are completely unacceptable on this project, especially when we have an official policy requiring the assumption of good faith. AshFriday (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
    • The thing is that COM:Assume good faith is always applied to the party that one agrees with, and doesn't get applied everywhere. For example, UserA accuses UserB of vandalism; there are two outcomes: 1) We say that UserA should have assumed good faith and chastise them, 2) UserC chastises UserA and we remind UserC that they need to assume good faith and consider the vandalism accusation as a way a new user brings vadalism to administrator's attention. The policies of this project at this moment are in such mess, that the only way people can keep contributing to a project is often to ignore them. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 06:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Very, very true. The rules are a mess and there is not enough room to write new rules. I mean, I've tried, and that wasn't even policy or anything. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
        Not surprisingly, given deletionist influence over Commons. But this problem is not about deletionism itself, but vandalism accusations to further a deletionist agenda. A person using the “vandalism” anathema against legitimate users is a trickster, no matter how many crooks does s/he fight for the cause of Commons. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Wait… the problem with Patrick isn’t necrosis of AGF—what can you expect from a guy facing numerous crooks uploading copyvio to Commons daily?—the problem is Patrick’s inability to discern vandalism from a legitimate dispute. What do we see on Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Colombia? A red link. Did the discussion occur at user_talk:Yurilizarazo, perhaps? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Partick also continues to leave misleading edit summaries (such as this one) despite having been instructed not to.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry @Incnis Mrsi: not to have you replied earlier to your (now weekly) new report on me. First I'll we pleased if you refrain to associate my name with a depreciative Wikipedia thing (en:Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia) or at least if you use quotation marks for "deletionnist" as you do for “vandalism” (you see you can do it) and since it has been told you in the past few days (here among others) to care about your language. Second I can confirm you I've no hidden "agenda" here but sure you "advances" one and it's again the same old song: complaining about Administrators through me (like in September among others) and to be frankly it starts to be annoying. Besides may I remember you that Commons goal is to host free content so it's consubstantial for Commons to fight copyvios and don't you think that your so-called "deletionnists" should be praised instead of defending copyright violators? In fact, concerning @Yurilizarazo: , I and @Jamez42: , @San Bernardo: , @Taichi: , @Strakhov: ... have no need to find "tricks" to fill a complaint against him at Spanish Wikipedia or here, for insults, problematic edits or repeated copyvios. Finaly I've apologied myself 2 days ago for having made a big mistake by accusing this user of vandalism and asked Administrators to withdraw my initial report. I'm OK too for sending him further explanations and excuses once he's unblocked if the Administrators told me I should. I expect, Incnis Mrsi, to have replied to all your questions, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
It’s good that Patrick Rogel apologized for the Yurilizarazo thing, but how is the September case about speedy deletion relevant here? I didn’t mix e. g. clueless reading of Exif with this report (although I could) – the current problem is communication, not accuracy of speedy tagging. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
If the title of this thread is Misuse of the vandalism noticeboard, Incnis Mrsi claims this problem is not about deletionism itself, but vandalism accusations to further a deletionist agenda and Patrick Rogel says they have already apologised for having made a big mistake by accusing this user of vandalism and Icnis Mrsi thinks It’s good that Patrick Rogel apologized for the Yurilizarazo thing... isn't this "problem" solved? Or do you expect more? IMHO Patrick Rogel does a nice job tagging copyrighted stuff for deletion and should be praised for that. Strakhov (talk) 12:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Spammer

user:Xoxajic has uploaded a number of PDFs which contain links to a download site. Can someone please block and delete all of their uploads (which contain images of book covers that are copyright violations)? Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

  Done Nuked and indef blocked. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Colin

Hi, I am sorry to have to bring the issue against a long term contributor, which I used to appreciate. In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Julia Margaret Cameron - Ellen Terry at Age Sixteen - Google Art Project.jpg, Colin (talk · contribs) has made insults and repeated personal attacks towards me, to support his request for deletion. So I am asking

  1. That he stops these,
  2. That he apologizes,
  3. That he gets a strong warning for this behaviour.

Regards, Yann (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm seeing dickish comments on both sides ("Yann, I hope today finds you in a better mood. " and "Colin, stop attacking every opinion which doesn't fit your righteous view.") but I'm not seeing anything that warrants a warning or any sanction, I'm just seeing a normal (albeit heated) discussion....,
If you both can't come to an agreement then sometimes it's best to just walk away and let things progress on its own,
I'm not seeing anything that needs admin intervention at this present time. –Davey2010Talk 19:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Yann uploaded and nominated this image at FPC: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Julia Margaret Cameron - Ellen Terry at Age Sixteen - Google Art Project.jpg where I opposed it for the basic reason that this famous print is brown, not whatever strange colour Yann's upload is. Ikan Kekek agreed with me: "I think Colin is right". Yann withdrew the nomination. Then I noticed that Yann has inserted is wrong-colour version of this very famous print from the Getty Museum, onto several Wikipedia articles, without any wiki discussion with editors on those articles. Those who remember the User:Jan Arkesteijn debacle will recognise this, though Jan had a tendency to just overwrite images rather than replace. Ultimately Jan got blocked and some of his false-colour painting uploads have now been deleted as having no educational value (when we already have an accurate-colour version on Commons). From this I created the deletion request. You can see Yann is angry/upset because the DR bot-created talk page message gets deleted with "Colin, go away" and his response to the DR is "Nonsense! Colin, I advise you to stay away, and stop insults to me."
I'm with the Google Art Project, the Getty Museum and the British Journal of Photography in thinking we already have the correct brown version of this print. Yann, and his laptop screen, think otherwise. Adam Cuerden, a highly awarded/respected restorer of artworks on Commons also queries whether Yann is seeing the correct colours and notes the documentation should be better.
But more than that this is an educationally worthless inaccurate version of a world famous early photographic carbon print, there is the lack of basic professional honesty about the image Commons is offering. Note that the "retouched" template was only added during the DR. The image title, description and sourcing all claim that this image is from Google Art Project and sourced from the Getty Museum. I don't think that is acceptable and insults the professional photographers and curators at that museum. Commons can do better than misrepresenting other professional photographer's works. The only apology due, is to them. -- Colin (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Yann, may there be a possibility that your computer has somehow a configuration problem? Not sure if your version looks brown/sepia on your screen, on my screen it is some kind of green. (not voting 'delete' though for as long as the file is in use in Wikipedia article space). Jcb (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Jcb, it was Yann who put it in Wikipedia article space (on en and fr and wikidata at least). Adam has already reverted the one on en:wp. Much as I'm loathe to interfere during a DR, I've reverted it on Wikidata too, since that is influential on other projects. The Wikidata image was particularly damaging since it includes the misleading filename in-text. Unlike an image being considered for "in scope" issues, there is no reason to give weight to its inclusion on Wikipedia since (a) it was Yann who did it and (b) we have a high resolution accurate alternative that can be substituted. -- Colin (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I am not interfering in that aspect of the case, I was just wondering whether some confusion caused by a configuration problem may have contributed to this case. Jcb (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
As Yann added a note to the image "{{retouched|Desaturated with Gimp.}}", I went ahead and have overwritten it with a fully desaturated image, in accordance with the retouched template.
As for Colin, saying "Both were altered versions by User:Jan Arkesteijn who is now blocked indef" and repeating it here, as well as bringing up the idea of blocks on a regular basis when users don't behave the way Colin wants them to, does not contribute to a healthy collaborative environment. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I have reverted Alexis's b&w overwrite per COM:OVERWRITE. This sort of interfering is not helpful, but what's new. The block of Jan is mentioned of course to remind everyone how seriously Commons takes it when users misrepresent professionally created works of art with their own amateur variations, and then push them onto Wikipedia. I don't for a moment think Yann has reached that level, and certainly hope this discourages him. Reverting bot talk-page notifications with a childish "go away" message, is not admin behaviour, and no admin should ever, ever, tell another user to "go away", when they are conducting normal Commons business, such as raising a DR. Yann should learn to nurse his bruised ego off-wiki. -- Colin (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  Comment I was hill, that's why I didn't answer earlier. Colin's words are not acceptable as they do not focus on the image, but on me. In addition, he answers every contributor who do not suit his opinion with more attacks, which prevent others from expressing themselves. It is not possible to have a serene discussion in these conditions, so I stopped answering there. I would send a strong warning, and then block if this would continue, any user behaving in this way (obviously not when I am a party). Regards, Yann (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Yann, there is a behavioural problem with your creation of this image that misrepresents the print colours, with your misleading attribution, with ensuring the image appears on Wikipedia, and with your angry reaction to the creation of a DR. With the first two, there are parallels with Jan's actions which resulted, eventually, in an indef block and with the deletion of some images. Additionally, your replacement of the existing correct version with your incorrect version on Wikipedia, is directly relevant on a DR where two people have expressed reluctance to delete the image because of a belief that Commons does not interfere with Wikipedia -- it was your interference that put them on Wikipedia. And your reaction to the creation of the DR, to tell me to "go away" on both your talk-page-revert edit summary and in the DR itself, is behaviour unbecoming an admin. My raising these behavioural problems are not "personal attacks" as you claim above, but valid comment on an ongoing problem with a disruptive user. A personal attack is quite specifically unrelated to both content and actions and writing, but simply about the person. For example, a comment on race, age, gender, or a basic insult like "stupid". When BevinKacon asked me a direct question at the DR, and I replied, the consequence was this AN/U. You talk of a "serene discussion". How is "Colin, go away" a serene response to a bot DR message. How is "Colin, go away!" a serene comment at a DR by an admin? I think, Yann, you've got yourself angry, and it seems are still perceiving the situation within a red mist of rage. Take a break, and meanwhile please get your laptop screen fixed. -- Colin (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
How can you alone decide that derivative versions of GLAM images are not OK? That is beyond me. The message on my talk page is not by a bot, but by you, for a DR with mostly bullshit arguments. And my laptop is brand new, and I checked the color balance, it is OK. You are particularly gifted for making people angry with strong attacks, while keeping the appearance of respectability. I can't accept this as OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Yann, firstly the message on your talk page is by a bot or automated script -- it is generated automatically when I create a DR. Why do I have to explain this to you? I see now you are using offensive language to make your point. I created a DR so the community could discuss whether your false-colour version of this notable print had educational value and should be hosted here. I have expressed my opinion, and as the creator of the DR, I'm quite entitled to respond to other opinions. Your comments like "righteous view" and "you alone" are both unwelcome and misleading. I'm not an admin, so I don't get to "decide" anything. But let's bounce this back, how can you alone decide that Google Art Project, Getty Museum, The British Journal of Photography and the seven people who voted for the original version to be a Featured Picture on English Wikipedia, are all so blind to not see your mysterious "pink stain" and instead foist your greenish amateur variant onto several Wikipedias and Wikidata? The professionals take photos of artworks like this with colour checker calibration charts. They do so because photography of great works involves faithfully reproducing them for others to see. Which is educationally where I believe Commons should sit. You don't appear to have learned from Jan's block. Look at this DR, where Fæ says
"This painting is effectively a work of fiction, it is a false-colour version of ____... Replacing the authentic official original image with fake colour versions on Wikipedia(s), without any notice or consensus to do so, appears to be a pure act of vandalism. Deletion is necessary as the image actively misleads and misinforms. There is no reason for other Wikimedia projects or reusers off-wiki to use this false colour version and continuing to host it on Commons will leave the door open for future mistaken reuse or further deliberate misrepresentation. "
At Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 73#User:Jan Arkesteijn, Jeff G. wrote "This user keeps uploading problematic green-tinted images, claiming they are from the mentioned source, but not explaining the differences". That's also you, Yann, the exact same issue. Steinsplitter commented "the original ones are looking different. Highly concerning" and "Do you think it is okay to change colors of hundreds of years old files" . He went on to give an example of Jan's alteration. Let's add yours here so we can all see the similarity
  •  
    Jan's manipulation
  •  
    GAP/Getty version
  •  
    Yann's manipulation
Let's not forget that when English Wikipedia was told (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive997) there was overwhelming support for a total ban of Jan from the project. We simply do not change the colours of prints, paintings, etc, because we don't like the colour those prints and paintings actually are. This is an early photographic carbon print and the brown colour tone is a vital aspect of its authenticity and period charm. -- Colin (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I stand by my comment quoted above, and I agree it applies to some of Yann's work, except that "green" was an understatement (there were other tints, too). OTOH, Colin's references to a potential block have been excessive.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

No outside parties consider there to be a user problem here, most of the above should be at DR or moved elsewhere. Someone close this?--BevinKacon (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@BevinKacon: even though Colin had some point, his references to blocks or other sanctions on a regular basis are a problem imho. Those references turn discussions instantly toxic. Colin should refrain from bringing up sanctions, directly or indirectly, when not really necessary. This would help to keep discussions on topic. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Jan's actions, the dim community view of them, and the eventual consequences of repeating them, are directly relevant to Yann's editing of this photo. Yann is also old enough and been on Commons (from the start) to be able to handle such comments, a DR on his own upload, and an oppose vote at FPC without the tantrums I linked to above. I am also not responsible for your behaviour either: both of you should learn to take responsibility for your own behaviour and handle criticism of such. Your recent edit at the DR, and your editing of the photo under discussion, continues a long line of disruptive behaviour here. -- Colin (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
And you just keep repeating yourself instead of taking a step back. It would sure be nice if your disruptive behaviour would stop, but I guess it won't. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Wcveiga

Wcveiga (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios just out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for 6 months. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Buckaroo bob 91

Meaningless accusations to another user--NewDataB (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  Done User page deleted. Anything else? Yann (talk) 08:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: created again --NewDataB (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Yusef 1365

Uploads copyvios out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked for one month. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Kansascitt1225 and spillover sockpuppetry from the English Wikipedia

Be aware that accounts User:Uploadpictureaccount, User:Uploadaccounty1234, User:Cernerkansascity, User:Breezyflower, User:Flyingsquirrel1234 are all associated with the same person who has had over twenty accounts blocked on the English Wikipedia. See the investigation for the full story. What uploads haven’t yet been deleted for copyright violation probably are. There are likely other accounts I haven’t caught. I’m not huge user of commons so I hope this is in the right place. Grey Wanderer (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

  Done All accounts blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I found another one at User:Chabadabread25. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  Done Indefinitely blocked. I blocked also the master and created sockpuppet category. Taivo (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Ralf_Roletschek with his

was already warned in December that Commons:Signatures is a policy (that is, mandatory). Yet

Isn’t a bit too bold for him to break two policies during the last two weeks? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

(wow, this is convoluted, it took me a while to figure out what is happening here) Did you bother to read the response? User_talk:Ralf_Roletschek/Archive/2018#Signature. It was timely (only 10 minutes passed from the moment of the comment, and User:BevinKacon did not respond. So the user is justified in thinking that the issue is resolved. The German version of the policy does state that it is only a recomendation[1]. It is, however, true that in English language there is no word «recommendation», so this discrepancy should be resolved. Otherwise, this user was pointed to the German version of the policy, and then is being brought to ANU for not autotranslating English version and following that instead.   I oppose any pentalties against the user, but the policy should be clarified in all languages. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 17:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
May we try to resolve it without Google?
“ Bilder… nicht in Signaturen verwendet werden ”

— , Commons:Signatures/de #Bilder_in_der_Signatur

The page is labeled as a policy of Commons. Why should one think that its instructions are optional? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

COM:SIGN has been official policy for over four years. Please make Ralf stop violating it with every noticeboard and talk page post.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Ralf Roletschek's response is disingenuous at best. Commons:Signatur clearly says (in bold !!!) "Bilder jeglicher Art dürfen [...] nicht in Signaturen verwendet werden". The text he cites ("Daher lautet die Empfehlung") follows that prohibition and means, colloquially, "because of the forgoing [prohibition], the following is recommended..." It is not the non-use of an image that is recommended, but that the signature be a "relatively short text signature" (i.e., the omission of the full text "Daher lautet die Empfehlung: Verwende eine einfache, relativ kurze Textsignatur" is a seemingly deliberate misrepresentation.) Эlcobbola talk 18:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry for it, if it was "unwise", but this discussion is too funny: You discuss about the look of the discussion page in a project that is about discussion create and find free media and name this "User problems". Habitator terrae 🌍 18:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but COM:SIGN is a policy and people have to follow the policy. There is really no excuse for this kind of behaifior. Such signatures are not allowed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for this off topic, but first a policy has to follow the people and second (non off-topic) has to be relevant for a project, in the cases where it is invoked. Habitator terrae 🌍 20:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I talked to him in a language he understands, and now he answered more nicely. (User_talk:Ralf_Roletschek#Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Ralf_Roletschek_with_his) Signature is done in my opinion, and rollback-rights are not that clear violation (I don't think Ralf needs rollback-rights, because he could use the normal revert.) I now oppose any block of the user. — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 22:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Rollback

@Elcobbola: any opinion on “der Dateiname ist Teil der Attributierung, wie von der Lizenz vorgesehen”, by the way? It seems that Ralf’s [extra] load on Wikimedia is not in GIFs only, and is not limited to servers. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi and Ralf Roletschek: I think Ralf did not use the rollback right correclty. I think that Attribution of CC-BY-SA 3.0 allows renaming of the filename (maybe not of the Author), therfore Ralf's argument is in my opinon wrong. And secondly if I check Special:Diff/334922689 @Boboseiptu: added "{{it|Un bicchiere di [[:it:Hugo (cocktail)|Hugo]]}}", therfore it was a definitly usefull edit. Revert/(or even Rollback) the whole thing is in my opion wrong.
Generally I would say let the uploader decide whatsoever
But since he did not appogize on User_talk:Ralf_Roletschek/Archive/2019#Rollback_abuse, or neither seemed to be sorry I think the files should get renamed according to Commons:Requests_for_comment/File_renaming_criterion_2.
I think the User should get informed by an administrator that his opinion is wrong, but since the user does not believe anything as long as it is not executed, we might should add a warning (not only an information)
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 21:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
COM:RENAME includes "To change from a meaningless or ambiguous name to a name that describes what the image particularly displays" as a "widely undisputed us[e] for rename requests". Ralf Roletschek's comment is bizarre: 1) it is contrary to COM:RENAME, as mentioned; 2) attribution in the file name is not a requirement of the Free Art or CC-by-SA 3.0 licenses; and 3) even if that were a requirement, the proposed rename over which he is edit-warring still includes his name (!!!). Эlcobbola talk 21:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

image

@Gone Postal, Jeff G., Incnis Mrsi, and Ralf Roletschek: My mother tonge is german, and it [1] says clearly "Images of any kind may not be used in signatures for the following reasons:". It is recommended to "Use a simple, relatively short text signature.". I don't use an immage, but I neither have a simple nor a short signature, therfore I am on the border of the rule, but my signature is still allowed.
I would say: "wo kein Kläger dort kein Richter" (where no claimant there is no judge), but severslowdown is something which affects everyone therefore I would say, let us just inform User:Ralf Roletschek that he is not allowed to use an image in his signature (maybe a administator, with enough knowledge should agree on the statement).
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 18:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
If he's attached to the eye, why not substitute in 👁️ or a similar emoji? Sure, it doesn't blink (and some might only see a white box), but it's also not going to put any load on the Wikimedia servers. clpo13(talk) 18:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Ich verstehe sowieso nicht, was hier geschrieben wird. Und ich werde hier kein weiteres Mal vorbeikommen. Mal wieder wurde in irgendeinem Hinterzimmer irgendwas beschlossen, was man nicht mitbekommt. Man braucht mich nicht sperren (ist mir mittlerweile aber auch scheißegal), ich bin schon vergrault hier und nur noch sporadisch anzutreffen. Entscheidungsträger sind Leute, die selbst keine Bilder beisteuern, den aktiven Fotografen aber ständig neue Vorsachriften machen wollen. Commons hat mal Spaß gemacht. Ich lasse mich nicht in meiner Freizeit gängeln. --Ralf Roletschek 21:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralf Roletschek (talk • contribs) 21:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC) (UTC)

HTML-only;) --Habitator terrae 🌍 21:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@JoKalliauer: Agreed. We need to inform User:Ralf Roletschek of the need to slightly change the signature. We also need to inform User:Incnis Mrsi of guidelines (Commons:Assume good faith). ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 06:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
What? I didn’t question Ralf’s faith and he is in fact a prolific contributor, but anyone isn’t allowed to waste the community resources with demands for irregular forms of attribution, brinkmanship and scorning the Commons policy which is mandatory for everyone (hello, ru.Wikipedia). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ↑ a b https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCommons%3ASignatures%2Fde

Edit warring

So this photo shows “commando” exhibitionism set in what is clearly a library, but LibraryGeek (talk · contribs) (@LibraryGeek: ping) wants to avoid «shock value» and keeps removing Category:Unidentified libraries. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The edit summary on the edit in question says it all: "The purpose of the category is to seek identification of the library, and to move it to the proper category. Clearly, it is not possible to identify the library. It is much easier to identify the person posing for the photo. The photo does not provide us with information about this library, or libraries in general. Posting it here only has "shock value" and is disruptive. Do not edit war." The only change I am making is removing it from Category:Unidentified libraries. The remaining categories are entirely appropriate, and I am not trying to censor the photo. The user has "one-upped" me be adding Category:People in libraries. Unless we want to create a category(ies) Category:Nude people in unidentified libraries or some such, I suggest we leave this photo out of the category in question. LibraryGeek (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm not sure what "after EC" stands for, but I will refrain from further edits to this pic pending admin decision and resolution. I believe this user's addition of Category:People in libraries is equally nonsensical, and was only added in context of his edit war, but once again, I defer to the ruling of an admin. LibraryGeek (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
"after EC" means that I got an edit conflict when I posted my message, because you posted a message in the meantime. This is sometimes usefull to know, because that often means that someone has not read the most recent reaction on a discussion at the moment of posting their reaction. Jcb (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked @Tuvalkin: for a week for edit warring. This is far from their first time edit warring and should have started a discussion long before reverting multiple users to the point of disruption. @LibraryGeek: I would have much preferred you started a discussion on the talk page instead of trying to argue through edit summaries. I understand you only undid twice, and I have confidence you will heed to this advice in the future. Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Just to add I unfortunately support the block, As much as I like Tuvalkin the library in this case didn't need identifying and shouldn't be identified as it then puts them in a bad light, Whilst technically LibraryGeek is the one who should've been blocked for edit warring Tuvalkin should've had the sense to realise this library didn't need identifying (or failing that going to LGeeks talkpage to get a discussion going),
I'd support unblocking providing they promise not to readd that cat to that image and to go to users talkpages in future, Their last block was just over 2 years ago so it's not like they're edit warring on a daily basis,. –Davey2010Talk 18:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
My analysis of the reverts on the page :
LibraryGeek's reverts : 1, 2
Tuvalkin's reverts : 1, 2, 3, 4
I would be willing to adjust the block length, given the circumstances and the time period since the last EW block. My concern is that this seems to demonstrate that the user is more concerned about the content of the edits than they are willing to accept their behaviour is unacceptable and modify it for the benefit of the community. This all could have been avoided with a simple talk page discussion and that does not seem to be understood. Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Jon Kolbert I don't particularly want to click that image again so I'll take your word for it :), It's a shame I mean a simple "Okay understood, I won't edit war again" would've sufficed but there we are,
As an ex-edit warrer myself I know how easy it is to edit war but generally everything goes in your favour if you follow the book.... You get better results!, Shame they didn't think about any of this,
Ah well thanks anyway, –Davey2010Talk 19:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe we all agree it's kind of useless to place a photo that only shows a bookshelf of some library into the category of libraries needing identification. It's like those low-res pictures of plants, that probably will never be identified, so no point on leaving them into the working catz. Alexis Jazz seems to have already solved the categorization thing, and the catz of dissension are not there anymore. The whole episode seems to be cold now. Can we unblock Tuvalkin and move on?-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I would be willing to lift the block as soon as they promise to refrain from edit warring, but reading their comments at their user talk page, they don't seem to admit that they were at fault, which is concerning. Jcb (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
@DarwIn: depending on what Tuvalkin's response to the question I asked on their talk page will be I will support or oppose that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jcb: +1, that is exactly why I have not done so already. Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@DarwIn: Tuvalkin responded. (you should read the response first) Here's what I'll say. I think Tuvalkin is the kind of person who finds it difficult to admit they were wrong. In that regard, Tuvalkin is not unique around here. I support reducing the block length from 7 days to 5 days (so the block would expire in 2 days). My reasoning behind that is that I believe people who find it difficult to admit they were wrong need time off to realize they erred. I estimate that realization will be complete in 2 days and there will be no purpose in blocking Tuvalkin any longer. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I red it, and seems that the whole thing is over now, so the block now is mostly a punishment. I support lifting it or at least reducing the time, if there is not disagreement about it.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@DarwIn: this particular thing is clearly over. I also think something like this will happen again at some point in the future (but we all make mistakes sometimes, so that's okay). By reducing the block length to five days (two more from now) instead of lifting it right now, I believe that point in the future will be more distant. But more input will be needed to come to a decision. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I have lifted the block. We seem to have come to an understanding, and I feel like there is a low-risk of this being a recurring thing. If so, the block length and chances of it being lifted will reflect the inability to learn from mistakes. Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Guys, I know what edit warring is, alright? I know why it’s bad for the project and I never would/will do it on purpose. I didn’t notice it was a 3rd reversion in a row, and this should not have happened. Obviously I mantain my opinion on the categorization matter (no amount of blocking would change that, and that’s not what the block was for, some opinions above notwithstanding), but all the same I will go on adding attempts at discussion with drive-by “uncategorizators” in each affacted cat or file talk page. Sooner or later some other editor will pick those up and restore the misguided uncategorizations. Not a perfect system, but better than edit warring. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @Tuvalkin: "Misguided uncategorizations"??? It seems that you are completely convinced you are right and nobody else has a valid point. What purpose is accomplished by adding this photo to Category:Unidentified libraries? Are you hoping that someone is going to come along and identify the library? "Unidentified (whatever)" is useful if you have a photo of the front of the building because you're hoping that someone might identify it and then we could add it to articles about that building. It's completely useless when you have a photo of a generic location that could be anywhere and the location is completely beside the point. We're never going to identify it. --B (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, that is misguided, yes. Meaning that categorizing (or not categorizing, in this case) like that causes Commons to be fractionally less useful and adds an arbitrary exception rule to the principles behind categorization of image files. That’s my opinion — maybe I’m wrong, maybe I’ll change it. Right now, though, this is the best point I can apport to the matter. Of course I think it is a valid point, or else I would not make it. And of course I think contrary points are not correct, or else there would be no discussion in the first place. But I also do not think that this is a kind of moral failing on the part of those with disagreeing with me, and I would never condone any form of silencing those opposing views. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Response I have SO many things to say about this matter, I can't even start. Just when I've calmed down enough to make a level-headed and well-reasoned response, somebody does something else that upsets me. It it clear from the comments above that the issue is not over, and is not likely to be over anytime soon. Do not take my silence as agreement. I want to make my points in a calm and rational matter. I will do so as soon as I'm able to. The comments above have thrown gas on the fire. I'm not going to take the bait. Please just don't take my silence as agreement. I WILL speak on this when I feel I can do so constructively. LibraryGeek (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @LibraryGeek: That’s the only way to discuss things in any useful manner. Emotions may stand in the way of us all, and yours — in a matter in which your view eventually prevailed and which brought you no disciplinary sanctions — are not the most hurt.
However, do take notice of a important requisite: This section of this forum is all about our edit warring, not at all about how to categorize photos showing un-library-like stuff going on in libraries. Above you showed to be misinformed about this aspect of the matter and also implied that you think admins have greater say in matters of content — they, however, do not. Their job is to make sure discussions among (all) users occur smoothly and that consensus is upheld: They hold a mop, not a sceptre.
When content curation discussions heat up I always try to keep in mind my first ever such discussion here in Commons, more than 10 years ago: It envolved image overwriting (and, therefore, possible edit warring) and deletion requests, there was frustration and some sort of name calling, and in the end I was defeated but unconvinced. And I was wrong: 100% wrong, fully 180°, ass-backwards wrong. I understood that much later. Wrong in view of the project’s consensus and wrong on the face of my meanwhile changed view on the matter, influenced by practice and by understanding of the underlaying principle.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Your arrogant, high-handed and condescending comments only upset me further. It appears to me that you remain intent on insulting me personally and not on discussing the original issue because in your mind, you're "clearly" right and I have to be wrong. It is you, and not me, who opened this discussion in the first place. It was clear to me that you wanted to punish me for daring to cross your path, and your tone continues to echo that. Your tone has varied from rude and obnoxious to subtle and passive-aggressive, but it's remained there. I realize my tone right now may be less than perfect, but your response continues to upset me. If we want to have a civil resolution, I firmly ask you not to continue stirring up the pot. I want to have a rational and constructive discussion. Your reply did not help facilitate that. If you have as much experience as you say, you should know that a response like that is defensive at best and not constructive. Please do not throw any further gas on the fire. Let me get a calm response together, and look at this with all the facts, and let's keep the tone respectful. Thank you. LibraryGeek (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 
Stop digging. Both of you!
Look, new template. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
It looks like we have, thank God ... though I'm still trying to dig out. What a mess! I appreciate the opportunity to cool down before responding. I still have some issues to air, but plan to do so calmly. That last post clearly provoked me, and my reply was anything but calm. I appreciate the humor, thanks! LibraryGeek (talk) 11:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Public response

First of all, thank you, everyone, for allowing me the time and space to cool down and to reply calmly. This encounter with this user was a very intense and personal experience. Clearly, this user got under my skin, and, from my point of view, was very intent on provoking and insulting me. My second reply on Jan. 4th (18:59) clearly indicates just how upset he got me. I'm not proud of that response. But, at this point, I think it's finally safe to say that the fire's out, and the embers have grown cold ... on my end, at least. I have posted a detailed review of this entire incident at User:LibraryGeek/Edit war review. It was composed between my last response of the 4th and that of the 7th, and was reviewed/edited again today. While I see no need to rehash everything again in the public discussion, I wanted to make my point of view available for those who may be interested, and to provide context for my requests.

After the fire - what do I need?
From the user
  • First and foremost, I need an apology from this user. Not once has he even come close to doing so. Rather, he's continued to unleash personal insults at me, and indeed, even at this forum. ("This section of this forum is all about our edit warring, not at all about how to categorize photos ... " (Jan. 4, 17:36)) He's even gone so far as to call for someone to reverse the decisions made here. "Sooner or later some other editor will pick those up and restore the misguided uncategorizations." (Jan. 3, 14:09) He is not only unapologetic towards me, he is unapologetic towards all of you.
  • I need him to acknowledge that a discussion on this photo was held, and consensus achieved, and that he will not continue this battle, either through edit warring or through other, indirect means. I have already done so at the beginning of this discussion: "I will refrain from further edits to this pic pending admin decision and resolution." (Dec. 30, 18:08)
  • I need him to realize that he should be grateful that he served only three days of his seven day block. The discussion to unblock him advocated a five day block.
  • I need him to acknowledge that not all new users are illegitimate, and that the length an account has been open is not a guarantee of perfection and righteousness in all things. Terms like "casual editor" and "drive-by" edits are insulting. I may have been new to Commons, but I am a serious editor, and was doing serious work until this dispute derailed me. My contributions are not just vandalism. I've been trying to clean up the category structure, and I've reduced the number of unclassified pics in Category:Libraries from over 600 to under 500. Had this dispute not stopped my work, the number would be significantly lower. The category structure continues to need work, however, there is content that needs to be sorted before further changes are possible. If I am allowed to continue my work, the potential for this entire kind of situation could be avoided in the future.
  • I need an understanding that new users are to be welcomed and not punished. If he thought my reverts were so misguided, why would he not "educate" me instead of punish me with such an obscure message as "And now in AN/U"? There can be no doubt of this: his intention of opening this discussion was not to help me, it was to punish me for daring to cross his path.
  • I need an acknowledgement that despite his statement "I would never condone any form of silencing those opposing views." (Jan. 3, 15:02) that was exactly the point of his opening this discussion.
From the administrators
  • I need administrators to realize that the purpose of a block is not just as punishment. It is a means of enforcing a "cool-down" period. Clearly, three days was not long enough. The user was not cool. He was still red hot. If admins had not released the block prematurely, a whole new layer of dispute on both our halves would have been avoided.
  • I need administrators to understand that a premature release of a block is highly likely to release a still-glowing user back into the oxygen, and further flames may well result. It also denies the other user an opportunity to cool down himself, and to make a calm, well-considered response. It extends, rather than reduces the dispute.
  • I need administrators to understand that a new user does not mean an inexperienced one. The user may be new to this Wiki, but for many of us, Wikimedia Commons is a second home. Many of us have been on the various language Wikipedias for longer than our Commons accounts will show. Remember that Commons was founded to serve as a common repository of pics used in all the various langage Wikipedias. Rather than have the same pic uploaded to each Wikipedia, the purpose of this Wiki was to allow a single pic to be used by all. That's why the name: Wikimedia Commons. Of course, for those users, this is a second home, and its language and procedures may not be as well known as those of their home wiki. This does not make them idiots, nor does it mean they are completely inexperienced. Support, do not insult your users.
  • I need administrators to understand that blaming the victim and self-dealing (officially resolving a dispute involving his own self) are unacceptable practices in a fair and honest forum.

Are these tall demands? Perhaps. Are the reasonable? I believe so. I realize the user may not. But if we cannot address these issues, they will only come up again, if not with this user, than with another with a similar attitude.

Related issues
  • During the course of this discussion, I observed another user who called for my head in response to the first user's blocking (Dec. 30, 19:48) open a complaint against a user, litigate it, and close it himself.conflict While it appears the outcome of that discussion may have been merited, I still have an issue about how the issue was dealt with. Closing your own complaints is a conflict of interest, and if allowed to become standard procedure, encourages an environment of abuse of power. Disputes between users, no matter how obvious, should always be closed by a disinterested third party, else there is no point to this forum, at all.
  • It has since come to my attention that the file in question has the banner: {{Personality rights}} (Direct link to summary to save you from having to look at the actual pic.) This raises the question that while the taker of the photo may have consented to the copyright release, that does not mean that the subject of the photo has waived her rights. Clearly, she is aware of a picture being taken, as she's looking directly into the camera, but that does not mean that she consented to having this picture widely posted on the Internet. While generally, a photo taken in a public setting exempts this requirement, it is uncertain if this particular picture was taken in public or private. It could, for example, have been taken in the library of a private institution, or outside of public hours. Furthermore, the partial nudity could invoke other laws imposing strict legal requirements for documenting the model release. These laws may take precedence over the public exemption. There are clear legal concerns to be addressed on this particular image. This is not a request for deletion or an attempt at censorship on my part. Rather, I am simply pointing out that there are open legal questions that may need to be reviewed in the appropriate forum.
Since at the beginning of this discussion, I vowed that "I will refrain from further edits to this pic" (Dec. 30, 18:08), I feel I have no other means of bringing this issue to someone's attention than to mention it here.

I hope, at this point, we can settle things and move on. However, I do want to resolve these issues, before doing so. Ignoring them will only make things worse in the end. I hope at this point, everyone else will be able to, as well. If you don't understand where I'm coming from, please look at the full post. I tried very hard to document and explain myself very thoroughly. I wanted my points to be based on facts and not emotions or faulty memories. I wish everyone the best and look forward to resuming my work here soon. LibraryGeek (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Wow ... after so much fire and furry, this response gets ... crickets. While I'm not surprised the user fails to admit he's wrong ... it's clearly not in is nature, I'm more surprised that the admins have also not commented on my observations about how this situation was made worse, not better by the premature end of the user's block. I wish this place could be a little less new-user-hostile, and the attack this user laid on me is a clear example of this attitude that apparently is still prevalent here. Very disappointing. LibraryGeek (talk) 06:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I notice that Category:People in libraries was removed from the image. I believe it was an appropriate category here and I see no valid reason for its removal. --Trougnouf (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Overcat, I didn't see Category:Nude or partially nude women in libraries was added. --Trougnouf (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
It's interesting, this file was SO important that he HAD to open a complaint on me ... and now, no response at all. I'm still waiting for an apology. I take I may wait forever. I'm more concerned that the admins don't have a response to my point that things could have also been better handled on their end, too. If I don't have a sense that this place is fairly and impartially run, then I'm not likely to make major contributions that I've been planning on. DO you want new contributors here, are are newbies unwelcome and are to be driven off the platform at all possible costs? I'm still waiting to hear on that. LibraryGeek (talk) 02:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_74&oldid=416644760"